Conversion, as a cause of action, is closely similar to an action for trespass to chattels. see Wint v. Alabama Eye & Tissue Bank, 675 So. 2d 383, 384-85 (Ala 1996) (quoting Roberts and Cusimano, Alabama Tort Law Handbook, 29.0, p. 598 (1990)), but these actions differ in that the tort of conversion requires a more extensive interference with the plaintiff's possession. Restatement, 222 cmt. a, reads: "Normally any dispossession is so clearly a serious interference with the right of control that it amounts to a conversion; and it is frequently said that any dispossession is a conversion. There may, however, be minor and unimportant dispossessions, such as taking another man's hat by mistake and returning it within two minutes upon discovery of the mistake, which do not seriously interfere with the other's right of control, and so do not amount to conversion. In such a case the remedy of the action of trespass remains, and will allow recovery of damages for the interference with the possession."