What question did Poggi v. Scott answer?

It asked whether an unwitting sale of someone else’s goods can still be conversion. The court said yes—knowledge of ownership is not required.

What rule about conversion did the court apply?

Conversion is an unjustified act that takes or exercises control over another’s property, causing loss; intent or knowledge is not essential.

Why did the defendant lose?

He sold barrels that belonged to the plaintiff. His lack of knowledge about contents or ownership did not excuse the wrongful control.

What is the student-friendly takeaway?

If you deal with property that is not yours and your act denies the owner’s rights, that can be conversion—even if you made an honest mistake.

Does the content of the barrels matter?

No. The court said the presence or absence of wine did not change the wrongful sale of the owner’s barrels.

Poggi v. Scott

Poggi v. Scott (1914)

Conversion • Property Rights • Easy-English Explainer

Supreme Court of California 1914 139 P. 815 Torts / Property 6 min read

CASE_TITLE: Poggi v. Scott PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: conversion, tort of conversion, property SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: unwitting sale, dominion, California 1914 PUBLISH_DATE: 30-10-2025 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India slug: poggi-v-scott

Quick Summary

The court held that selling another person’s goods—even by mistake—can be conversion. What matters is the wrongful control over the owner’s property, not whether the seller knew the full details or contents. In this case, the sale of the barrels was enough to make the seller liable.

Issues

Does an unwitting sale of another’s property amount to conversion?
Is knowledge of ownership or contents required for liability?

Rules

Conversion: Unjustified interference with another’s right to control property that causes loss. Intent or knowledge is not essential.
Act of dominion that denies or challenges the owner’s rights is enough.

Good faith is not a defense if your act wrongfully controls another’s goods.

Facts (Timeline)

Lease & Storage: The plaintiff rented a basement and stored locked barrels of wine.

Visits: He checked the storeroom roughly twice a month.

Ownership Change: The judge sold the building to the defendant; the plaintiff was not told.

Notice Point: The judge said he informed the defendant about the plaintiff’s lease.

Sale Event: Two buyers asked about the barrels. The defendant inspected and sold them, saying price could change if barrels were not empty.

Claim Filed: The plaintiff sued for conversion to recover damages for his goods.

Chronological timeline of events in Poggi v. Scott

Arguments

Appellant (Plaintiff)

The barrels were his property under a valid lease.
The defendant’s sale denied his right to control them.
Loss occurred regardless of the defendant’s knowledge.

Respondent (Defendant)

Believed the barrels were part of the premises.
No intent to harm; price was conditional on contents.
Lack of notice from the plaintiff should excuse liability.

Judgment

Decision for the plaintiff. The defendant committed conversion by selling barrels that were not his. Whether the barrels held wine did not matter, and his lack of full knowledge was irrelevant.

Ratio

Rule crystallized: Exercising control that is inconsistent with the true owner’s rights is conversion. Good faith or mistake does not remove liability.

Why It Matters

Protects owners when others deal with their goods without authority.
Warns sellers and landlords: verify rights before selling stored items.
Clarifies that “honest mistake” is not a shield to conversion.

Key Takeaways

Conversion can happen without bad intent.

Selling another’s goods = act of dominion.

Contents or condition of goods may be irrelevant.

Respect storage leases and notice obligations.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “SAD” — Sell, Act of dominion, Damages follow.

Sell/Seize: You treat goods as your own.
Act of Dominion: Owner’s control is denied.
Damages: Liability even if the mistake was honest.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Is an unwitting sale of another’s goods conversion?

Rule: Unjustified control over another’s property that denies the owner’s rights is conversion; good faith is no defense.

Application: Defendant sold the plaintiff’s barrels despite the existing lease; this sale denied the plaintiff’s control and ownership.

Conclusion: Yes. Conversion occurred; the plaintiff is entitled to damages.

Glossary

Conversion: A wrongful act of control over goods that belongs to another, inconsistent with their rights.
Dominion: Power to use or dispose of property as if you were the owner.
Good Faith: Honest belief. In conversion, good faith usually does not remove liability.

FAQs

The court found conversion. Selling barrels that belonged to the plaintiff was an unjustified act of dominion. The defendant’s mistake did not excuse liability.

No. Conversion can occur without knowledge if the act denies the true owner’s rights.

No. The conversion was complete when the defendant sold the plaintiff’s barrels, regardless of contents.