Conversion of Goods—Assumption of Dominion.—In order to charge a defendant with the conversion of the plaintiff’s goods, he must be shown to have done some act implying the exercise or assumption of title or dominion over them, Or some act inconsistent with the plaintiff’s right of ownership, or in repudiation of such right.

Id.—Acts in Ignorance of Owner’s Claim.—Asimple act of intermeddling with another’s property, which does not imply any assertion of title or dominion over it, and which is done in ignorance of the owner’s claim thereto, and without any intention to deprive him of it, will not constitute a conversion.

Id.—Conversion a Tort.—Conversion is a tort, and to establish it there must be a tortious act.

Id.—Bailment—Restoration to Bailor—Protection of Bailee.—If a bailee has the temporary possession of property, holding the same as the property of the bailor, and asserting no title in himself, and in good faith restores the property to the bailor, pursuant to the bailment, before he is notified that the true owner will look to him for it, no action will lie against him for its conversion.

Id.—Demand and Refusal—Impossibility of Compliance—Burden of Proof as to Ability.-—A demand of the property and a refusal to redeliver it do not of themselves constitute conversion, but are merely evidence from which a conversion may be established, and, as evidence, may be repelled by proof that a compliance was impossible; and a refusal is not evidence of conversion, unless the party has it in his power at the time to deliver up the goods, aud, in order to establish conversion by mere proof of demand and conversion, the plaintiff must also show the ability of the defendant to comply with the demand at the time when made.

Id.—Storing of Sugar in Warehouse—Unauthorized Purchase in Name of Bailee—Delivery to Bailor, When Not a Conversion. Where a person who obtained leave to store sugar in a warehouse assumed, without authority, to purchase the sugar from a third party in the name of the owner of the warehouse, and took a receipt in the name of the owner, the transaction does not establish any relation of contract between the owner of the sugar and the owner of the warehouse, who received the sugar as the bailee of the person delivering it; and when the sugar was removed from the warehouse by the bailor before the owner of the warehouse had any knowledge of the ownership of the sugar he is not liable for a conversion of it, aud cannot be made liable by a demand and refusal to deliver it to the owner at a time when it was out of his power to comply with the demand.