This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by Theophilus Parsons. Also available from Amazon: The law of contracts.
If the plaintiff claims the property converted merely by a lien to secure a debt he recovers only the amount of the debt, because that is the measure of his interest if the defendant have any title or interest at all; (r) and this whether he be an original * mortgagee, or a purchaser of the mortgagee, or a purchaser of the mortgagee's rights, (s) But if the defendant be a mere stranger the plaintiff has a title to the whole as against him and recovers the whole value, (t) Where a pledgee tortiously withholds the pledge or has sold it without calling on the pledgor to redeem, and the pledgor brings an action against him, the pledgee may have the amount of his debt deducted or recouped in the assessment of damages, (u) tional damages, if laid in the declaration, and directly resulting from the wrongful act of the defendant, are recoverable. (Davis v. Oswell, 7 C. & P. 804; Bodley v. Reynolds, 8 Q. 13. 779; Rogers v. Spence, 13 M. & W. 571.) And an early decision to the same effect is found in our own reports. (Shotwell v. Wendover, 1 Johns. 66.) It is true, that in Brizsee v. May bee (21 Wend. 144), Mr. J. Cowen, speaking as the organ of the court, seems to have held, that under no circumstances ought the jury to be permitted to find special damages in the action of trover; and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania seems to nave given its sanction to the same doctrine (Farmers Bank v. McKee, 2 Pa. 318); but as this doctrine, literally understood, in effect denies the right of the plaintiff to a full indemnity, however certain the evidence of his loss, the language of the learned judges ought perhaps to be construed as only meaning, special damages onght never to be allowed, where, from the nature of the case, the estimate must be uncertain and conjectural; and the doctrine, thus explained and limited, we are far from wishing to controvert."
(r) Hays v. Riddle, I Sand. 248; Ingersoll v. Van Rookkelin, 7 Cowen, 670; Spoor v. Holland, 8 Wend. 445; Lloyd p. Goodwin, 12 Smedes & M. 223; Strong v. Strong, 6 Ala. 345; Cameron v. Wynch, 2 Car. & K. 264. In Hickok v.
Buck, 22 Vt. 149, the defendant leased to the plaintiff a farm for one year, and by the contract was to provide a horse for the plaintiff to use upon the farm for that term. He furnished the horse, but took him away and sold him before the expiration of the term, without providing another. It was held, that the plaintiff acquired a special property in the horse, and was entitled to recover, in an action of trover, damages for the loss of the use of the horse during the residue of the term.
(s) Parish v Wheeler, 22 N. Y. (8 Smith), 494.
(t) White v. Webb, 15 Conn. 302; Lyle v. Barker, 5 Binney, 457; Schley v. Lyon, 6 Ga. 530. In Hey don & Smith's case, 13 Rep. 67, it was laid down: "So is the better opinion in 11 Hen. IV. 23, that he who hath a special property in goods, shall have a general action of trespass against him who hath the general property, and upon the evidence damages shall be mitigated; but clearly the bailee, or he who hath a special property, shall have a general action of trespass against a stranger, and shall recover all in damages, because that he is chargeable over. These remarks apply as well to trover as to trespass.
(u) Jarvis v. Rogers, 15 Mass. 389; Stearns v. Marsh, 4 Denio, 227. And sea ante, vol. ii. pp. - * 120.
Hurd p. Hubbell, 26 Conn. 389 (but see West v. Pritchard, 19 Conn. 212); Tarloe v. Turner. 2 Cr. C. C. 203; Domett v. Frith, 25 Ga. 537, (compare Beall v. Rust, 68 Ga, 774); Brewster v. Van Liew, 119 111 554 ,* Hays v. Crist, 4 Kan. 350, Miles v. Miller, 12 Bush, 134; Schlater v. Gay, 28 La. An. 340; McKenney v. Haines, 63 Me. 74; Third Bank v. Boyd, 44 Md. 47; Andrews v. Clark, 72 Md. 396; Johnson v. Sumner. 1 Met 172; Jackson v. Evans, 44 Mich. 510; Walker v. Borland, 21 Mo. 289; Roy Ian v. Huguet, 8 Nev. 345; Fosdick v. Greene, 27 Ohio St. 484; Coffman v. Williams, 4 Heisk. 233, 240; Copper Co. v. Copper Mining Co. 33 Vt. 92; Ingram v. Rankin, 47 Wis. 406; Combs v. Scott, 76 Wis. 662; McMurrich v. Bond, etc Co. 9 U. Can. Q. B. 333.
 
Continue to: