Houston v. Columbia Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, 569 S.W.2d 211 (1978)

Citation: Houston v. Columbia Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, 569 S.W.2d 211 (1978)
Parent Document: Houston v. Columbia Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, 569 S.W.2d 211 (1978)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 1978-05-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2450794/houston-v-columbia-federal-savi... ↗

Full Text

1,083 chars

450 S.W.2d 217, 221[7] (Mo.App.1970). Plaintiffs’ “demand” in the instant case did not apprise defendant of the specific articles claimed by them. Defendant’s request of plaintiffs to separate and identify their belongings went unheeded. A court judgment was necessary to delineate which articles of the group in storage belonged to plaintiffs. Further, plaintiffs’ own testimony revealed that the reason they were not in possession of their property was that they had no facility to retrieve it or any place to put it. It has been stated that “[a] demand is insufficient which would require for compliance therewith that the person on whom it is made transport or carry the chattel to the owner.” 89 C.J.S. Trover and Conversion § 58, pp. 561-562. The evidence proved that plaintiffs’ own conduct caused their property to remain with defendant. No proper demand for the return of specific identifiable property was made by plaintiffs, and, therefore, no refusal for such was demonstrated by defendant’s actions. Again, plaintiffs’ evidence failed to prove a conversion by defendant.

Other Sections in This Document (35)

Full Text