Prosser v. Keeton

Prosser v. Keeton
143 Unrep. Case 1113.

Facts: Prosser's watch was stolen by Thurlow. Thurlow sells it to Keeton (who had reason to believe the deal was legit). About a month later, Prosser sees Keeton wearing it and demands it back; Keeton refuses.

Procedure: Trial judge held that Keeton was a converter and liable to return the watch or pay its reasonable value.

Issue: Is Keeton liable to return the watch (or its value)?

Holding: No (2-1)

Rationale:

• Allen, J. (the dissent) - The thief could not transfer a title which he did not in fact have, so Keeton is a converter and is liable.
• Bateman, J. - Justice requires that Keeton keep the watch, since neither of them are guilty of wrongdoing, but Prosser was in the better position to prevent the loss.
• Compton, J. - Policy requires that Keeton keep the watch, since if every buyer were liable for their purchases capitalism would grind to a halt. There is no evidence, btw, that watch owners are better able to prevent thefts than watch buyers are able to detect them.