One who has acquired converted goods, either with notice of the conversion or without paying value, is himself guilty of conversion, and to the extent of the benefit derived from his wrong may be called upon for restitution.1 If he has not paid for the goods, he is ordinarily benefited to the extent of the value of the goods, or in case of a resale by him, to the extent of the price realized from such resale.2 If he has paid for the goods, but with notice of the conversion, he is ordinarily benefited only to the extent that either the value of the goods, or the sum realized upon a resale, exceeds the amount paid by him.3

Even a bona fide purchaser for value of converted goods is liable for conversion unless, in making the purchase, he relies upon an apparent ownership or apparent authority to sell with which the seller has been clothed by the owner. Where he is liable as a tort-feasor, there is no objection to the election of assumpsit for goods sold and delivered as a means of recovering from him the value of the goods minus the price paid by him, which would ordinarily be the extent of the benefit received by him. But there are cases in which a recovery of the full value of the goods converted has been allowed.4

One who receives money which has been wrongfully taken from its owner, either with notice of the wrong or without paying value, may be sued for money had and received.1 But one who receives money innocently and for value is always protected,2 "as it would be mischievous to require persons, who receive money in the way of business, or in payment of debts, to look into the authority of him from whom they receive it." 3

1 Bettis v. McNider, 1903, 137 Ala. 588; 34 So. 813; 97 Am. St. Rep. 59; Roberts v. Evans, 1872, 43 Cal. 380; McArthur v. Murphy, 1898, 74 Minn. 53; 76 N. W. 955; Seavey v. Dana, 1881, 61 N. H. 339. See Berkshire Glass Co. v. Wolcott, 1861, 2 Allen 227; 79 Am. Dec. 781, (no recovery unless converter has sold goods and received money therefor).

2 Bettis v. McNider, 1903, 137 Ala. 588; 34 So. 813, 815; 97 Am. St. Rep. 59; McArthur v. Murphy, 1898, 74 Minn. 53; 76 N. W. 955; Seavey v. Dana, 1881, 61 N. H. 339.

3 Greer v. Newland, 1904, 70 Kan. 315; 78 Pac. 835; 70 L. R. A. 554; 109 Am. St. Rep. 424, (reversing 70 Kan. 310) ; 77 Pac. 98. But see Roberts v. Evans, 1872, 43 Cal. 380; Sage v. Shepard, etc., Lbr. Co., 1896, 4 App. Div. 290; 39 N. Y. Supp. 449, aff. 1899, 158 N. Y. 672; 52 N. E. 1126.

4 Sage v. Shepard, etc., Lbr. Co., 1896, 4 App. Div. 290; 39 N. Y. Supp. 449, aff. 1899, 158 N. Y. 672; 52 N. E. 1126. And see Roberts v. Evans, 1872, 43 Cal. 380.