|
0651 A defendant who, while helping his daughter remove her chattels from the plaintiff's home, also removed the plaintiff's chattels in the belief that they were his daughter's, did not thereby commit conversion, and a lawsuit against him for conversion was sufficiently frivolous to justify the imposition of substantial sanctions for maintaining the suit and appealing its dismissal.CitationSIMONIAN v PATTERSON (Unrequited Conversion) 27 CA4 773 [See: Emmert v United 14 CA2 1; George v Bekins 33 C2 834; Carrey v Boyes 245 CA2 618; Zaslow v Kroenert 29 C2 541]
|
|
