Is the defendant liable for damages incurred to the plaintiff's property even though they were acting under private necessity?
A party acting under private necessity might not be liable for trespass but as he secured his property at the expense of the dock, he is liable for damages incurred to the property of others.
Was the mere unauthorized entry, without any actual damage to it or the land into an unenclosed land of another, an act of trespass?
Every unauthorized intrusion into the land of another is a sufficient trespass to support a claim for the same, whether the land be actually enclosed or not. And from every such entry the law infers some damage; if nothing more, the treading down the grass or shrubbery.
Is the unwitting sale of another's property sufficient to prove that the person committed conversion of the property?
Conversion is the unwarranted interference by one person with the dominion over the property of the other, which results in damages