conversion claim in Connecticut

2001"Conversion is an unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods belonging to another, to the exclusion of the owner's rights." Discover Leasing, Inc. v. Murphy , 33 Conn. App. 303 , 309 (1993).

2001"Conversion is an unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods belonging to another, to the exclusion of the owner's rights." Discover Leasing, Inc. v. Murphy , 33 Conn. App. 303 , 309 (1993). "`The tort of conversion boasts a well established definition. . . .

1997Luciani v. Stop Shop Cos., 15 Conn. App. 407 , 412 (1988) ("An actor is not relieved of liability to another for trespass to a chattel or for conversion by his belief, because of a mistake or law of fact not induced by the other, that he (a) has possession of the chattel or is entitled to its immediate possession, or (b) has the consent of the other or of one with power to consent for him, or (c) is CT Page 10439 otherwise privileged to act").

1993"Conversion occurs when one, without authorization, assumes and exercises the right of ownership over property belonging to another, to the exclusion of the owner's rights." Luciani v. Stop Shop Co., 15 Conn. App. 407 , 409 , 544 A.2d 1238 (1988). "[T]here are two `general classes' of conversion: (1) that in which the possession of the allegedly converted goods is wrongful from the onset; and (2) that in which the conversion arises subsequent to an initial rightful possession." Id., citing Coleman v. Frances, 102 Conn. 612 , 615 , 129 A. 718 (1925).

2006Where the covenant is intended by the parties to be an entirety, it cannot properly be so divided by a court that it will be held good for a certain area but invalid for another; indeed . . . this would be to make an agreement for the parties *770 into which they did not voluntarily enter.” [Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.]). 22 The plaintiffs in the present case attempt to distinguish Macomber v. Travelers Property & Casualty Corp., supra, 261 Conn. 620 , claiming that the only issue in that case was whether the subject of the conversion claim was specific, identifiable m

2003The plaintiff states that a statute of limitations claim may be raised in a motion to strike when all "parties agree that the [counterclaim] sets forth all the facts pertinent to the question as to whether the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations . . ." (Plaintiff's Memorandum, September 5, 2002, p. 4, quoting Forbes v. Ballaro , 31 Conn. App. 235 , 239 , 624 A.2d 389 (1993).) The plaintiff further states, "The Defendant's counterclaim plainly states that it discovered the overpayment to Plaintiff on December 26, 1998, and the plaintiff agrees that the facts relevant to the question

2003The plaintiff states that a statute of limitations claim may be raised in a motion to strike when all "parties agree that the [counterclaim] sets forth all the facts pertinent to the question as to whether the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations . . ." (Plaintiff's Memorandum, September 5, 2002, p. 4, quoting Forbes v. Ballaro , 31 Conn. App. 235 , 239 , 624 A.2d 389 (1993).) The plaintiff further states, "The Defendant's counterclaim plainly states that it discovered the overpayment to Plaintiff on December 26, 1998, and the plaintiff agrees that the facts relevant to the question

2002"Conversion occurs when one, without authorization, assumes and exercises ownership over property belonging to another, to the exclusion of the owner's rights." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wellington Systems, Inc. v. Redding Group, Inc. , 49 Conn. App. 152 , 169 , 714 A.2d 21 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 905 , 720 A.2d 516 (1998).

2002"Conversion occurs when one, without authorization, assumes and exercises ownership over property belonging to another, to the exclusion of the owner's rights." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wellington Systems, Inc. v. Redding Group, Inc. , 49 Conn. App. 152 , 169 , 714 A.2d 21 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 905 , 720 A.2d 516 (1998).

2002"Conversion occurs when one, without authorization, assumes and exercises ownership over property belonging to another, to the exclusion of the owner's rights." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wellington Systems, Inc. v. Redding Group, Inc. , 49 Conn. App. 152 , 169 , 714 A.2d 21 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 905 , 720 A.2d 516 (1998).

2002"Conversion occurs when one, without authorization, assumes and exercises ownership over property belonging to another, to the exclusion of the owner's rights." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wellington Systems, Inc. v. Redding Group, Inc. , 49 Conn. App. 152 , 169 , 714 A.2d 21 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 905 , 720 A.2d 516 (1998).

1999Conversion is "an unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods belonging to another, to the exclusion of the owners rights." Aetna Life Casualty Co. v. Union Trust Co. , 230 Conn. 779 , 790 (1994).

1995The defendant argues that conversion involves the "unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods belonging to another, to the exclusion of the owner's rights." Defendant's Memorandum, citing Falker v. Samperi, 190 Conn. 412 , 419-20 , 461 A.2d 681 (1983).

1995The defendant argues that conversion involves the "unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods belonging to another, to the exclusion of the owner's rights." Defendant's Memorandum, citing Falker v. Samperi, 190 Conn. 412 , 419-20 , 461 A.2d 681 (1983).

1993"Conversion occurs when one, without authorization, assumes and exercises the right of ownership over property belonging to another, to the exclusion of the owner's rights." Luciani v. Stop Shop Co., 15 Conn. App. 407 , 409 , 544 A.2d 1238 (1988). "[T]here are two `general classes' of conversion: (1) that in which the possession of the allegedly converted goods is wrongful from the onset; and (2) that in which the conversion arises subsequent to an initial rightful possession." Id., citing Coleman v. Frances, 102 Conn. 612 , 615 , 129 A. 718 (1925).

1993"Conversion occurs when one, without authorization, assumes and exercises the right of ownership over property belonging to another, to the exclusion of the owner's rights." Luciani v. Stop Shop Co., 15 Conn. App. 407 , 409 , 544 A.2d 1238 (1988). "[T]here are two `general classes' of conversion: (1) that in which the possession of the allegedly converted goods is wrongful from the onset; and (2) that in which the conversion arises subsequent to an initial rightful possession." Id., citing Coleman v. Frances, 102 Conn. 612 , 615 , 129 A. 718 (1925).

1935The basis of the maxim is the existence of a duty; “unless the equitable ought exist, there is no room for the operation of the maxim;” 3 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence (4th Ed.) § 1160; agreements “ ‘are to be considered as done at the time when, according to the tenor thereof, they ought to have been performed;’” Hall v. Hall, 50 Conn. 104, 111 ; Manice v. Manice, 43 N. Y. 303, 372 ; and equity can hardly regard that as presently done which the parties to a contract have agreed shall be done only in the future.

1935The basis of the maxim is the existence of a duty; “unless the equitable ought exist, there is no room for the operation of the maxim;” 3 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence (4th Ed.) § 1160; agreements “ ‘are to be considered as done at the time when, according to the tenor thereof, they ought to have been performed;’” Hall v. Hall, 50 Conn. 104, 111 ; Manice v. Manice, 43 N. Y. 303, 372 ; and equity can hardly regard that as presently done which the parties to a contract have agreed shall be done only in the future.