concurring and dissenting.
I fully concur in the affirmance of the trial court’s judgment in favor of Jorritsma for commissions, and in the determination that Jorritsma was not the holder of an equitable lien. In my view, however, that does not end the inquiry. Under the undisputed facts, Jorritsma had a property interest in the demonstrator which resulted in a common law lien. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the majority holding which affirms the judgment against Jorritsma based upon conversion. I would reverse that judgment of the trial court and dismiss the Tymac counterclaim.
The principal case in Missouri on the subject of equitable liens is Sidney Smith, Inc. v. Steinberg, 280 S.W.2d 696 (1955). An application of Sidney Smith to the facts of this action leads to a conclusion that Jorritsma did not have an equitable lien. However, as Sidney Smith points out, quoting Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence:
“The equitable lien differs essentially from the common-law lien, which is simply a right to retain possession of the chattel until some debt or demand due to the person thus retaining is satisfied; and possession is such an inseparable element, that if it be voluntarily surrendered by the creditor, the lien is at once extinguished.”
Sidney Smith, 280 S.W.2d at 704 (quoting 3 Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence § 1233, at 2959 (4th ed.)).
Here, Jorritsma was owed, as it turns out, $40,527.74 in commissions. The demonstrator equipment was supplied by Ty-mac to generate the sales which generated *601the commissions and, presumably, also generated profits for Tymac. As further stated in Sidney Smith:
“An agent who is entitled to be reimbursed from the principal for expenses incurred, advances made, or losses sustained during the course of the agency, or who is entitled to compensation for his services, has a [common-law] lien upon the principal’s goods or property which comes lawfully in his possession during the course of the agency from which the right to indemnity or compensation arises.”
Sidney Smith, 280 S.W.2d at 704 (quoting 3 C.J.S. Agency § 200, at 109). Thus, Jor-ritsma had a property interest in the demonstrator until his commissions were paid and had a right to retain the demonstrator until payment occurred. Under the circumstances, there could be no conversion.