## Facts

- Fowler owned cotton that was wrongfully taken by a third party and sold to Hollins, a cotton broker.
- Hollins purchased the cotton in good faith, without knowledge of the wrongful taking, and later resold it.
- Fowler sued Hollins for conversion, alleging unlawful interference with his property rights arising from Hollins’s actions.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant can be held liable for conversion despite lacking knowledge or intent to interfere with the plaintiff’s property rights.
2. Whether an act of purchasing and reselling wrongfully taken goods constitutes conversion.
3. The relevance of good faith and innocence as defenses in claims of conversion.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held Hollins liable for conversion, despite his lack of knowledge or wrongful intent.
- The court determined that liability for conversion arises from the defendant’s actions and their effect on the plaintiff’s property, not from awareness of the plaintiff’s rights.
- Good faith and innocence were found not to be defenses to liability for conversion.
- The act of purchasing and reselling the wrongfully taken cotton amounted to conversion, as it deprived Fowler of possession and control of his property.

## Legal Principles

- Liability for conversion is strict; it does not require the defendant’s knowledge or intent to interfere with another’s property rights.
- The focus in conversion is on the defendant’s actions and the resultant deprivation of the plaintiff’s property, rather than the defendant’s mental state.
- The distinction between conversion (deprivation of possession/control) and trespass to goods (direct physical interference) was clarified.
- Good faith and lack of knowledge do not exempt a party from liability for conversion.
- Agents and intermediaries, such as brokers, may be liable for conversion if their actions contribute to depriving the owner of property, regardless of intent.

## Conclusion

Hollins v Fowler established that a defendant can be strictly liable for conversion even if acting innocently and in good faith, underscoring the importance of protecting property rights over considerations of intent or knowledge in commercial transactions and property disputes.


Hollins v Fowler (1875) LR 7 HL 757