## Facts

- Gordon purchased household furniture located in a mansion house at Shoreham.
- Gordon leased the house and the furniture together to a tenant, Biscoe, for a fixed term that had not expired.
- Biscoe was in possession of the house and furniture throughout the relevant period.
- Harper, Sheriff of Kent, seized the furniture under a writ of execution issued on a judgment obtained by Broomhead’s executors against Borret, and then sold the furniture.
- Gordon sued Harper in trover for conversion; a plaintiff’s verdict was entered subject to the court’s opinion on the agreed facts.

## Issues

1. Whether a landlord who has leased chattels with premises for an unexpired term has a present right to possession sufficient to maintain trover against a sheriff who seizes and sells the chattels under an execution.
2. Whether ownership alone, without an immediate possessory right, supports a claim for conversion in trover.

## Decision

- Judgment was entered for Harper.
- The court held that trover requires both a right of property and a present right to possession at the time of the alleged conversion.
- Because Biscoe had the exclusive possessory right during the unexpired lease term, Gordon’s interest was reversionary only and did not support trover.
- The court indicated that the tenant in possession, not the landlord, was the proper party to complain of the interference with possession.

## Legal Principles

- To maintain trover (conversion), the plaintiff must have both (1) a property interest in the chattel and (2) a present, immediate right to possession when the conversion occurs.
- When chattels are let with premises for a fixed term, the tenant ordinarily holds the exclusive right to possession for the term; the landlord’s right to possession is deferred until the term ends (absent earlier termination).
- A reversionary or future possessory interest, without an immediate right to possession, is insufficient by itself to support trover for an interference occurring during the term.

## Conclusion

The court denied the landlord’s trover claim because, despite ownership, he lacked a present right to possess the furniture while it was leased to the tenant; the immediate possessory interest rested with the tenant, making trover unavailable to the landlord against the sheriff’s seizure and sale during the unexpired term.


Gordon v. Harper, 101 Eng. Rep. 828 (K.B. 1796)