Wrongful detention by a bailee allows election of remedy, judgment-date valuation, and separate detention damages.

A bailor may elect to sue for wrongful detention even where the bailee had earlier wrongfully converted the goods, because detention is a distinct continuing wrong and the bailee cannot rely on his own prior conversion to limit the remedy to trover. In an action for wrongful detention, the alternative value of the goods is assessed at the date of judgment, not the date of the tort, and damages for the period of detention are separately recoverable on a reasonable basis. The claim may also include interest and costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a bailor, on non-delivery of goods by a bailee, may elect to sue for wrongful detention notwithstanding an earlier wrongful conversion by the bailee. (ii) Whether in an action for wrongful detention the value of the goods is to be assessed at the date of the tort or at the date of judgment, and whether damages for detention are separately recoverable.

Issue (i): Whether a bailor, on non-delivery of goods by a bailee, may elect to sue for wrongful detention notwithstanding an earlier wrongful conversion by the bailee.

Analysis: The right to sue for wrongful detention is distinct from the remedy for conversion. Where the bailee remains under a duty to redeliver the goods and fails to do so on demand, the bailor is entitled to elect the remedy most suitable to the circumstances. The bailee cannot rely on his own wrongful act of prior conversion to defeat the bailor's claim for detention, and the existence of an earlier conversion does not compel the bailor to sue only in trover.

Conclusion: The bailor could validly sue for wrongful detention, and the plea that the remedy was confined to conversion was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether in an action for wrongful detention the value of the goods is to be assessed at the date of the tort or at the date of judgment, and whether damages for detention are separately recoverable.

Analysis: Wrongful detention is a continuing wrong until the goods are returned or their value is paid. In such an action, the plaintiff retains title and seeks return of the chattel or its value in the alternative, so the alternative monetary value is to be fixed at the date of judgment. Separately, damages for the period of wrongful detention are recoverable on a reasonable basis having regard to the nature of the goods and their likely use, and the notice under section 80 was construed with common sense so as not to defeat the claim for the appreciated value.

Conclusion: The value of the trucks had to be taken as at the date of judgment, and the appellants were also entitled to additional damages for wrongful detention.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the decree was enlarged to include the appreciated value of the trucks, additional damages for wrongful detention, interest, and costs.

Ratio Decidendi: In an action for wrongful detention by a bailee, the bailor may elect that remedy despite an earlier conversion, and the alternative value of the detained goods is assessable at the date of judgment, with separate damages for the period of detention.

---