## Facts

- Marie Tate Williamson and W. B. Tate owned timbered tracts adjoining land owned by Hilda Hines in Pike County, Mississippi.
- Hines believed (but did not know with certainty) that her land extended south of a creek; boundary lines were not clearly marked.
- In 1976, Hines made a verbal agreement to sell timber to George Brown.
- Brown arranged for others to cut and remove timber, making only superficial efforts to locate true boundary lines.
- Logging operations clear-cut almost all timber on Williamson’s 40-acre tract and cut timber on Tate’s land to a lesser extent.
- Timber cut from the plaintiffs’ land was sold to various mills, principally mills owned by Masonite Corporation, which received and paid for the timber.
- Cutting stopped after the owners discovered the activity and asserted ownership; Brown later pleaded guilty to two counts of malicious trespass.
- A forester performed a 100% stump count on the Williamson and Tate tracts to estimate the volume removed and value for damages.

## Issues

1. Whether a seller who mistakenly but in good faith believed timber was on her land is liable for conversion when she authorized cutting and sale of timber belonging to others.
2. Whether a timber purchaser’s conversion damages are measured by stumpage value or by the delivered value at the time and place the purchaser received the timber.
3. Whether the trial court could enter a single damages decree without precisely tracing which loads from which tract went to which purchaser or mill.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the chancery court’s judgment against Hines and Masonite.
- Hines was liable for conversion because authorizing cutting and sale exercised dominion over timber inconsistent with the true owners’ rights, even if based on a boundary mistake.
- Masonite was liable for conversion damages measured by the value at the time and place of its conversion—i.e., the delivered value at its mills when it received and paid for the timber.
- The chancery court did not err by entering a single decree based on aggregate proof where precise allocation among loads and recipients was impracticable and the total loss was adequately proved.

## Legal Principles

- Conversion occurs when a person exercises dominion or control over another’s property inconsistent with the owner’s rights; a good-faith mistake as to ownership or boundaries does not negate conversion liability.
- The measure of damages for conversion is the value of the property at the time and place of conversion.
- A purchaser from a converter obtains no better title than the seller and may be liable for conversion even without knowledge of the original wrongful taking; liability may include enhanced value at receipt.
- In timber-conversion cases involving multiple actors and commingled loads, damages may be proved by reliable aggregate methods (including stump counts), and a court may award a single decree when exact tracing is not feasible.

## Conclusion

The court held that boundary-line mistake did not excuse a timber seller’s conversion liability and that a downstream purchaser could be held liable for the timber’s delivered value at the mill as the value at the time and place of conversion, with damages supportable through aggregate proof when precise allocation was not practicable.


Masonite Corp. v. Williamson, 404 So. 2d 565 (Miss. 1981)