There is no doubt that the detention of another's goods, if based upon a negation of the owner's rights, is a conversion even though the goods are ultimately returned.4 It is equally clear that whether or not the owner would have actually employed the goods, had they been in his possession, the converter has deprived him of his "exclusive use" (ante, Sec. 274), and to the extent of the value of the use has enriched himself at the owner's expense. Accordingly, it is held that the owner may resort to the fiction of a hiring and hold the converter in assumpsit.1 But in jurisdictions where the use of assumpsit against a tort-feasor is limited to cases in which money has been received by him, it cannot be used against a converter who has returned the goods, unless during his wrongful possession he hired the goods to others and received compensation for their use.2

1 Clarke v. Shee, 1774, Cowp. 197; Calland v. Lloyd, 1840, 6 Mees. v. Wels. 26; Heilbut v. Nevill, 1870, L. R. 5 C. P. 478; Bayne v. United States, 1876, 93 U. S. 642; Zink v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 1897, 72 111. App. 605; Mason v. Waite, 1822, 17 Mass. 560; City of Newburyport v. Spear, 1910, 204 Mass. 146; 90 N. E. 522; 134 Am. St. Rep. 652; York v. Farmers' Bank, 1904, 105 Mo. App. 127; 79 S. W. 968, 971; Brundred v. Rice, 1892, 49 Ohio St. 640; 32 N. E. 169; 34 Am. St. Rep. 589; Hindmarch v. Hoffman, 1889, 127 Pa. St. 284; 18 Atl. 14; 4 L. R. A. 368; 14 Am. St. Rep. 842.

2 State Bank v. United States, 1884, 114 U. S. 401; 5 S. Ct. 888; Alabama Nat. Bank v. Rivers, 1897, 116 Ala. 1; 22 So. 580, 585; 67 Am. St. Rep. 95; Tanner v. Lee, 1904, 121 Ga. 524; 49 S. E. 592; Merchants' Loan, etc., Co. v. Lamson, 1899, 90 111. App. 18; Spaulding v. Kendrick, 1898, 172 Mass. 71; 51 N. E. 453; Walker v. Conant, 1888, 69 Mich. 321; 37 N. W. 292; 13 Am. St. Rep. 391; Case v. Hammond Packing Co., 1904, 105 Mo. App. 168; 79 S. W. 732; Justh v. Nat. Bank, 1874, 56 N. Y. 478; Stephens v. Board of Education 1879, 79 N. Y. 183; 35 Am. Rep. 511; Newhall v. Wyatt, 1893, 139 N. Y. 452; 34 N. E. 1045; 36 Am. St. Rep. 712 ; Bank of Charleston & Bank of State, 1866, 13 Rich. L. (S. C.) 291. Contra: Porter v. Roseman, 1905, 165 Ind. 255; 74 N. E. 1105; 112 Am. St. Rep. 222.

3 Mason v. Waite, 1822, 17 Mass. 560, 563.

4 See Barrelett v. Bellgard, 1874, 71 111. 280; Stockett v. Watkins' Admrs., 1830, 2 Gill & J. (Md.) 326, 343; 20 Am. Dec. 438; Sparks v. Purdy, 1847, 11 Mo. 219; Cernahan v. Chrisler, 1900, 107 Wis. 645, 83 N. W. 778.