The Winkfield English Court of Appeal Facts: Two ships, the Winkfield and the Mexican, collided off the coast of South Africa. Both ships were damaged, and the Mexican sank. Although the crew, passengers, and some mail and luggage were saved, the rest of the Mexican’s cargo was lost. Procedural History: After the owners of the Winkfield admitted liability, the PostmasterGeneral filed a claim for the value of lost mail for which no other claim had been made. The claim was refused on the ground that that Postmaster-General had no liability to anyone interested in the lost mail, and thus could not bring a claim for its value. The Postmaster-General then appealed. Issue: Can a bailee recover against a wrongdoer for trespass or damage to chattels even if the bailee is not liable to the bailor? Holding: Yes, a bailee can recover against a wrongdoer for trespass or damage to chattels even if the bailee is not liable to the bailor for the trespass or damage. Reasoning: The law presumes that, when a person wrongfully deprives another of property, the possessor had title to the property. The wrongdoer may not defend against a claim by the possessor by showing that a third party had title to the property. The wrongdoer is liable to the possessor for the full value of the chattel that has been converted or damaged. This principle is the reason a bailee may recover from a wrongdoer for conversion or damage to chattels. Originally, only a bailee could recover from a wrongdoer, but the right to recover was later extended to bailors as well. Therefore, the right of a bailee to recover exists independently of the right of a bailor to recover, and precedent shows that a bailee may recover even if he has a defense to liability against the bailor. Whatever a bailee receives from the wrongdoer that exceeds his own interest in the chattels must be paid to the bailor. A wrongdoer that has paid full damages to a bailee cannot be held liable by the bailor.