*Orifflth  V,  Fowler,  18  Vt.  390;  Dame  v,  Baldwin,  8  Mass.  518;  Par-
ham  V.  Riley,  4  Cold.  (Tenn.)  9;  Ventress  v.  Smith,  10  Peters,  161;
Newkirk  t?.  Dalton,  17  111.  415;  Lowry  v.  Hall,  2  W.  A  S.  (Pa.)  134.
*Wlth  reference  to  the  necessity  of  a  conylctlon  of  the  thief  before
the  owner  can  reclaim  his  stolen  property,  see  Foster  v.  Tucker,  3  Gr.
(Me.)  458;  Newkirk  v.  Dalton,  17  lU.  415;  Boston  A  W.  R.  R.  v,  Dana,
1  Gray,  83;  PettingiU  t;.  Rideout,  6  N.  H.  454;  Short  v.  Barker,  22
Ind.  148;  Gtordon.  v.  Hostetter,  37  N.  T.  99;  Bloody  v,  Keating,  4  Gr.
(Me.)  164;  Wells  v,  Abraham,  L.  R..  7  Q.  B.  554;  Hoffman  v.  Carow,  22
Wend.  285.  The  law  which  prohibited  a  private  action  against  the
thief  was  for  the  purpose  of  compelling  the  owner  to  prosecute  him  to
conviction;  the  right  to  recover  was  suspended.  Crosby  v.  Leng,  12
East  409.  But  the  prohibiUon  only  extended  to  suit  against  the  thief»
19


290  THE   LAW   OF   REPLEVIN.
§  809.  A  trespasser  acquires  no  title,  and  can  convey
none,  by  any  sale.  One  who  wrongfully  takes  goods  without
the  owner's  consent,  acquires  no  title  thereby,  and  can  convey
none,  by  any  sale  or  transfer  he  may  make.  So  when  such  a
taker  sells  the  goods,  even  to  an  innocent  pui'chaser  for  value,  the
owner  may  pursue  his  property  and  retake  it  wherever  found.
