FOURTEENTH ANNUAL YEAR BOOK— PART IX. 663 



different rule applies to bees, though ferae naturae. These have a local 

 habitation. Blackstone states: 'It hath also been said that with us the 

 only ownership in bees is ratione soli; and the charter of the forest, 

 which allows every freeman to be entitled to the honey found within his 

 own woods, affords great countenance to this doctrine that a qualified 

 property may be had in bees, in consideration of the property of the soil 

 whereon they are found.' The same rule is laid down in Cooley on Torts, 

 435, where it is said that bees 'have a local habitation, more often in a 

 tree than elsewhere, and while they may be said to be within control, 

 because the tree may at any time be felled; but the right to cut it is in 

 the owner of the soil, and, therefore, such property as the wild bees are 

 susceptible of is in him. By the law of nature, the person who hived 

 the swarm would be entitled to it; but, under the regulation of property 

 rights, since the institution of civil society, the forest, as well as the 

 cultivated field, belongs to the owner thereof, and he who invades it is a 

 trespasser.' " 



The case of Parsons vs. Manser, reported in the 119 Iowa, page 88, was 

 an action for damages where plaintiff's horses were stung to death by 

 defendant's bees. Briefly the facts are that the plaintiff had hitched his 

 team to a post a little west of the gate leading to the house of the de- 

 fendant, in the highway south of the house, and about five feet from the 

 fence. There were two bee gums about twenty-five feet north of the post 

 in defendant's yard, and three more ten or twelve feet farther on. Trees 

 stood close together west and north of this yard, and shrubbery and 

 bushes to the east. The only unobstructed passage was to the south and 

 southeast. Shortly after the horses were hitched to said post they were 

 attacked by the bees. The horses plunged forward and in so doing over- 

 turned two of the bee gums. Immediately the horses became covered with 

 bees. Shortly thereafter the horses died from the bee stings thus received. 

 The court, in rendering its opinion, gave the following discussion: 



"The plaintiff wa.s entitled to the free use of the highway, and had the 

 right to assume that those keeping- animals of whose mischievous nature 

 everyone is presumed to have knowledge would exercise reasonable care 

 for the protection of others from their depredations. True, bees may not 

 be confined like the wild beasts. To roam seems to be necessary to their 

 existence. They fly great distances, and, if interfered with, or their 

 course obstructed, are likely to resent by the use of their only available 

 weapon. Everyone harboring creatures ferae naturae is charged with 

 knowledge of their habits and evil propensities." 



"There is no reason for an exception in favor of the bee. Indeed, their 

 disposition to make themselves felt is a matter of common observation or 

 experience from early childhood. But they are very useful, the apiary often 

 furnishing a livelihood, and generally proving a source of profit; and the 

 books seem to look with more favor upon the keeping of animals useful 

 to man than those which are vsrorthless save as curiosities. For this reason 

 the rule of absolute liability for the consequences of injuries received from 

 wild beasts kept in confinement, declared in the earlier decisions, even of 

 regarded as sound, ought not to be extended to creatures so nearly do- 

 mesticated." 



"Liability for safe-keeping depends not so much on the classification 

 of animals into wild and domestic as upon their natural propensity for mis- 

 chief. If they are ferocious and savage, like the lion, tiger, etc., the 

 keeper is bound to know the danger incident to their confinement; and the 

 mere charge of not having been so restrained as to avoid injury is tanta- 

 mount to an allegation of negligence. But bees, while generally classed 

 as ferae naturae are so useful and common as to be all but domesticated. 

 Keepers of the apiary have carefully studied their habits and instincts, 

 and control them almost as certainly as domestic animals. Serious in- 

 juries from them are very rare, and, unless some want of care in their 

 management is shown, the owner ought not to be held responsible for 

 damages occasioned by them. Nothing could be done by the keeper of 

 bees to protect all from their attacks. These might occur miles from the 

 hives, and beyond his reach. But they have fixed habitations. The location 

 for these is always a matter for his determination, and it is not too much 

 to exact of him the exercise of ordinary prudence in so placing the hives as 

 to avoid unnecessary danger to those who are likely to make lawful use of 

 the premises or the highway nearby. In other words, he must so use 

 his own as not to interfere with the rights of others." 



TIhe plaintiff w&s given judgment by the trial court for the damage to 

 his Jxoxses and nxmn appeal the Supreme Court affirmed said judgment. 



