## Facts

- Bushel and Miller were porters working near the Custom House quay and used a shared hut with assigned storage boxes.
- Bushel placed goods (held for delivery to a third party) in front of Miller’s assigned box, blocking Miller’s access.
- Miller moved Bushel’s goods to reach his own box and did not return them to their prior location.
- The goods were subsequently lost.
- Bushel reimbursed the true owner for the value of the goods and sued Miller in trover for conversion.

## Issues

1. Whether an action for conversion lies where the defendant merely moves the plaintiff’s goods to gain access and the pleading does not allege an appropriation or other dominion inconsistent with the owner’s rights.
2. Whether, under common-law pleading in trover, omission of an allegation that the defendant “converted” the goods to his own use is fatal to the claim.

## Decision

- Judgment was entered for Miller.
- The court held the action in conversion could not be maintained on the declaration as pleaded.
- The court treated Bushel as the initial wrongdoer for obstructing Miller’s access, giving Miller a right to move the goods.
- The court concluded that failing to put the goods back, without more, could support trespass (or a similar interference theory) but not conversion.

## Legal Principles

- Conversion requires an exercise of dominion or control over chattel inconsistent with the owner’s rights; mere movement or negligent handling, without such dominion, is not conversion.
- At common law, the selected form of action controlled the required allegations; trover required pleading the conversion element, and failure to plead it defeated the claim even if another remedy might exist.
- A defendant may be justified in interfering with another’s chattel to protect or exercise a lawful right (here, access to an assigned storage area), limiting liability for that initial interference.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a trover claim where the declaration alleged only that the defendant moved goods and they were lost, holding that the pleading did not state conversion and that the conduct, at most, sounded in trespass or another non-conversion theory.


Bushel v. Miller, 93 Eng. Rep. 428 (K.B. 1718)