## Facts

- Plaintiffs and defendants were stock-exchange brokers.
- Plaintiffs agreed to sell defendants an Oregon Short Line Railroad bearer bond with a par value of $1,000 and obtained a bond from a third-party bond house to fill the order.
- The bond house mistakenly sent plaintiffs an Oregon & California Railroad bearer bond.
- Plaintiffs, unaware of the mistake, delivered the Oregon & California bond to defendants along with a slip describing an Oregon Short Line bond.
- Defendants received the envelope through their delivery-room slot; shortly thereafter, defendants realized the bond did not match the description on the slip.
- A partner or clerk at defendants’ office handed the bond out through a delivery-room window to an unidentified messenger boy after instructing him to make the slip match the bond.
- The boy was not plaintiffs’ messenger; the bond was never returned to plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs demanded return of the bond or its value and sued defendants for conversion based on the bond’s misdelivery.

## Issues

1. Whether a recipient of goods delivered by mistake becomes an involuntary bailee with duties regarding redelivery.
2. Whether an involuntary bailee commits conversion by handing the chattel to the wrong person while attempting to return it.
3. Whether good-faith, reasonable conduct in attempting redelivery defeats conversion liability for misdelivery.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the judgment for plaintiffs.
- The court adopted the Appellate Term dissenting view that defendants did not incur strict conversion liability merely by attempting in good faith to return mistakenly delivered property.
- The reversal rejected the Appellate Term majority’s rule that any exercise of dominion by an involuntary bailee makes the bailee absolutely liable in conversion for misdelivery.

## Legal Principles

- An involuntary bailee arises when possession is thrust upon a party without request or consent.
- Misdelivery can constitute conversion when a bailee exercises unauthorized dominion inconsistent with the owner’s rights.
- Where possession is involuntary and the bailee acts in reasonable, good-faith efforts to return mistakenly delivered property, misdelivery in that context is not automatically treated as conversion imposing absolute liability.
- Conversion analysis may depend on whether the defendant asserted a right to possess the chattel or merely attempted return without claiming title.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division held that a party who receives property by mistake is not strictly liable in conversion for misdelivery when, without claiming any right to the property, it makes a reasonable, good-faith attempt to return the item to the apparent messenger for the sender.


Cowen v. Pressprich, 194 N.Y.S. 926 (App. Div. 1922)