
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    NOV, 1806.
    Beckley and Clarke, Assignees of Drake, v. Howard.
    If a thing be bailed, and a third person, with the permission of the bailor who is entitled to reclaim the thing, should demand .it of the bailee, but should give no evidence of his right to do so, the refusal of the bailee to deliver up the thing upon such demand, will not amount to a wrongful conversion.
    Trover. Tried before Grimke, J., in Abbeville District. The action was brought to recover damage^ for converting a certain, bond conditioned to convey land given to one Winn to Drake. It appeared in evidence, that Drake, being in custody of the sheriff at the suit of plaintiff, Clarkej deposited the bond in question in the hands of defendant, Howard, as a friend, whereon to raise money for his relief, and to satisfy his creditor. Defendant acknowledged he had the bond, but refused to deliver the same to Clarke. Clarke, prior to the assignment of Drake’s property under the insolvent debtors act, had demanded the bond of Howard, but produced no authority from Drake to authorize him to do so. The judge at the trial charged in favor of the plaintiff; and as there was no evidence to ascertain the penalty of the bond, evidence was allowed to be given of the value of the la'nd mentioned in the condition.
    Gantt, for the motion ; Bowie, against it.
   Waties, J.,

delivered the opinion of all the judges, except Bay, '^absent, sick. No proof of conversion. Drake, when the demand was-made' by Clarke, had not assigned the bond, nor given Clarke any authority to demand it. Plaintiff not entitled to recover. The ‘ penalty of the bond not appearing, there was no other standard whereby to estimate the damage than the land to be conveyed, if a conversion had been proved.

New trial granted.  