Is L.R.A

(N. S.) 494; Gurley v. Armstead, 148 Mass. 267, 19 N. E. 389, 2 L. R. A. 80, 12 Am. St. Rep. 555; Burditt v. Hunt, 25 Me. 419, 43 Am. Dec. 289; contra, Southern Express Co. v. Palmer, 48 Ga. 85. Where the carrier has been notified by the true owner while the goods are still in its possession, however, it is a conversion to deliver them according to the directions of the shipper; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Jordon, 67 Kan. 86, 72 Pac. 533; Charleston & W. C. R. Co. v. Pope, 122 Ga. 577, 50 S. E: 374. The intention required is simply an intent to use or dispose of the goods, and the knowledge or ignorance of the defendant as to their ownership has no influence in deciding the question of conversion; Lee v. Mc Kay, 25 N. C. 29; Thayer v. Wright, 4 Denio (N. Y.) ISO; Thrall v. Lathrop, 30 Vt. 307, 73 Am. Dec. 306; 'Riley v. Water Power Co., 11 Cush. (Mass.) 11; Newkirk v. Dalton, 17 111. 413; Bartlett v. Hoyt, 33 N. H. 151. A license may be presumed where the taking was under a necessity, in some cases; 6 Esp. 81; or, it is said, to do a work of charity; 2 Greenl. Ev. § 643; or a kindness to the owner; 4 Esp. 195; Sparks v. Purdy, 11 Mo. 219; Plumer v. Brown, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 57S; without intent, in the last two cases, to injure or convert it; Plumer v. Brown, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 578. As to what constitutes a conversion as between joint owners, see Lowthorp v. Smith, 2 N. C. 255; White v. Osborn, 21 Wend. (N.« Y.) 72; Campbell v. Campbell, 6 N. C. 65; Bradley v. Arnold, 16 Vt. 382; and as to a joint conversion by two or more, see White v. Demary, 2 N. H. 546; Forbes v. Marsh, 15 Conn. 384; Guerry v. Kerton, 2 Rich. (S. C.) 507; White v. Wall, 40 Me. 574. A tenant in common can maintain trover for the sale or attempted sale of the common chattel; Williams v. Chadbourne, 6 Cal. 559; Dyckman v. Valiente, nothing short of the destruction of the plaintiff's property is a conversion, because a sale passes only the vendor's title and the co-tenant continues a co-tenant with the purchaser; Big. Torts 204. It is held also that trover lies, between co-tenants, for a mere withholding of the chattel, or the misuse of it, or for a refusal to terminate the common Interesl: Agnew v. Johnson, 17 Pa. 373, 55 Am. Dec. 505; Piquet v. Allison, 12 Mich. 328, 8G Am. Dec. 54. An original unlawful taking is in general conclusive evidence of a conversion; Davis V. Duncan, 1 Mc Cord (S. C.) 213; Fain v. Payne, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 431; Hyde v. Noble, 13 N. II. 494, 38 Am. Dec. 508; Garrard v. R. Co., 20 Pa. 154; Skinner v. Brigham, 12G Mass. 132; as is the existence of a state of things which constitutes an actual conversion; Everett v. Coflin, 0 Wend. (X. Y.) 603, 22 Am. Dec. 551; Combs v. Johnson, 12 N. J. L. 244; Newsum v. Newsum, 1 Leigh (Va.) 86, 19 Am. Dec. 739; Jewett v. Patridge, 11' Me. 243, 27 Am. Dec. 173; Hirues v. Mc Kinney, 3 Mo. 3S2; Grant v. King, 14 Vt. 307; without showing a demand and refusal; but where the original taking was lawful and the detention. only is illegal, a de^ mand and refusal to deliver must be shown; Witherspoon v. Blewett, 47 Miss. 570; 5 B. & C. 140; Kennet v. Robinson, 2 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 84; Thompson v. Rose, 16 Conn. 71, 41 Am. Dec. 121; Polk's Adm'r v. Allen, 19 Mo. 407; Rogers v. Huie, 2 Cal. 571, 50 Am. Dec. 363; but this evidence is open to explanation and rebuttal; Cooley, Torts 532; 2 Wms. Saund. 47 e; 5 B. & Aid. 847; Thompson v. Rose, 16 Conn. 71, 41 Am. Dec. 121; Jacoby v. Laussatt, 6 S. & R. (Pa.) 300; Lockwood v. Bull, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 322, 13 Am. Dec. 539; Hunger v. Hess, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 75; Dietus v. Fuss, 8 Md. 148; even though absolute; 2 C. M. & R. 495. Demands and unlawful refusal constitute a conversion; Big. Torts 200; mere refusal is only evidence of conversion; id. 202. There has been a conspicuous lack of harmony in the decisions as to whether a pledgee or purchaser from one guilty of conversion is himself guilty, before demand and refusal. In England the law is briefly summarized in 46 Solicitor's Journ. 24. In 11 Q. B. Div. 99, it is held that there is no conversion until detention after demand; so also Rawley v. Brown, IS Hun (N. Y.) 456; but by the weight of American authority demand is not necessary; Riley v. "Water Power Co., 11 Cush. (Mass.) 11, and see an article in 15 Am. L. Rev. 363. The refusal, to constitute such evidence, must be unconditional, and not a reasonable excuse; 3 Ad. & E. 108*; Robinson v. Burleigh, 5 N. H. 225; Wood v. Dudley, 8 Vt. 433; Thompson v. Rose, 16 Conn. 76, 41 Am. which the party has no right to impose; 6 Q. B. 44.';; Dowd v. V., 0. 130, 18 Am. Dec. 507; if made by an agent, it must be within the scope "f his authority, to hind the principal; 6 Jur. K. R. Co., l E. D. Sin. i.\. y.i 522; but is not dence of conversion where i 1 by a condition which the party baa a right to impose; 6 Q. B. 443; 5 B. As AM. 247: well v. Few, 7 Johns, i\". Y.i 302; Dowd v. Wadsworth, L8 N. 0. 130, 18 Am. Dec. 567; Watt v. Potter, i: Mas. 77. Fed. I No. 17,- 291. It may be made at any time prior to bringing suit; ii Greenl Ev. § 644; 11 M. & \v.::<;<;; storm v. Livingston, 0 Johns, i.v. Y.) 44; if before he has parted with his possession; Knapp v. Winchester, 11 Vt 351. it may bo inferred from non-compliance with a proper demand; 7 C. & P..'>:;'.»; Judah v. Kemp, 2 Johns, ('as. (N. Y.) 411. The demand must be a proper one; White v. Demary, 2 N. H. 546; Fa Place v. Aupoix, 3 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 400; Spence v. Mitchell, !> Ala. 744; made by the proper person; see 2 Brod. & B. 447; Watt v. Potter, 2 Mas. 77, Fed. Cas. No. 17.291; Carr v. Farley, 12 Me. 328; and upon the proper person or persons; 3 Q. B. 099; White v. Demary, 2 N. II. 510. The plaintiff must have at least the right to immediate possession; Hardy v. Munroe, 127 Mass. 64.