This seems to me a very plain case. The plaintiff claiming to be the owner of personal property lying on the defendants' land, sued the defendants who also claimed to own that personal property, to establish his title; and he procured a preliminary injunction forbiding *Page 168 the defendants from asserting their alleged ownership by suit in court, or in any other way, pending the principal suit; but he was finally beaten, the court determining that the property belonged to the defendants, and not to the plaintiff. In the meantime, while the defendants' hands were tied, the plaintiff carried off the property, destroyed its identity, and disposed of and converted its proceeds to his own use; and the question is what damages the defendants have suffered in consequence of this proceeding of the plaintiff. The object, and the effect of the injunction manifestly was to allow the plaintiff to carry off and dispose of the property, while the defendants, who were, as the event has shown, its owners, were precluded from doing anything whatever in court or out of court, to protect themselves in its possession. Prima facie, the value of the property which the defendants have lost, was the measure of the defendants' damages. If the property had remained specifically the same during the litigation, and at its conclusion had been within the defendants' reach, the damages probably would have been such as resulted from their being deprived of its use pendente lite, and from any depreciation in value. But under the existing facts it is the same thing as though it had been destroyed, while the owners were prevented from extending their hands for its preservation. The plaintiff's argument is, that the loss was not occasioned by the injunction, but by the tortious act of the plaintiff and his assistant, unconnected with that process. This is too narrow a view of the question. If it had been carried off and converted by a stranger while the owners were prohibited from doing anything to protect it, the persons who restrained them ought to make recompense for the loss. A fortiori, he should make compensation when he himself carried it off and converted it during the restraint which he had procured to be imposed. The efficient cause of the loss was the inability of the defendants, caused by the injunction, to take care of and preserve that *Page 169 which was their own. The argument which seeks to turn the defendants over to their remedy against Smith Barton, who aided the plaintiff in carrying off the logs, is equally ungracious and unfounded. That person would no doubt be considered a co-trespasser with the plaintiff, and would be liable to an action. But whether it would be fruitful in producing compensation or not, no one can say. It was not shown that he was pecuniarily responsible, and it may be that a judgment against him would be as valueless as one against the plaintiff. Before any consideration could be attached to the remedy against him, the plaintiff should have shown that he was able to respond for the consequences of the act which the plaintiff had, by means of the injunction, and by employing him in removing the logs, enabled him to perform. I am for affirming the order appealed from.