157 



justice, and in a wise i)nblic policy: Tliat alt1u)uj;li animals fercv 

 natnra', however valuable to tlie world, are not the subjects of jirop- 

 erty, while in their original condition of wildness, hvyond the control 

 of man for any purpose whatever, the law will yet recognize a right of 

 X)roperty in them in favor of one who, by acting upon their natural 

 instincts, and by care, watchfulness, self denial, and industry, induces 

 or causes them to ahide for stated periods in each year, ujion his 

 premises, so that he, and he only, is in a position to deal with the race 

 as a ichole, talcing its increase regularly for commercial purposes 

 tcithout impairing the sfocl: The authorities i^roceed upon these 

 grounds: That '' occupation," as it is called, is the foundation of prop- 

 erty in animals fercv nat^irw; that the right of property is not lost 

 when the animals are away from their accustomed habitation provided 

 for them upon the premises of the owner, as long as their absence 

 is accompanied Avith the iutention to return; and that such inten- 

 tion is deemed to exist while they have the habit of returning. 

 Occupation is a fact to be determined Avith reference to the nature 

 and habits of each particular race of animals. What is sufficient 

 occupation in respect to some animals may be wholly inadequate to 

 give a right of iiroperty in others. While each case must depend 

 upon its own facts, there must be, in every case of animals /(?/•«; naturwi 

 in ^hicli a right of property is asserted, such an occupation as will 

 enable the owner or controller of the premises to which they habitually 

 resort to establish a husbandry in respect to them — an occupation which 

 gives, at least, such certain, continuous control of them that their 

 increase can be regularly taken for man's use without impairing 

 the stock. Of course, without occupation, the animus revertcndi will 

 not alone, or in itself, avail to give a right of property in wild animals. 

 But the animus revertendi will continue a right of i)roperty acquired 

 effectively by occupation. The intention or habit of returning to the 

 premises of the occupier must coexist, at all times, with the fact of 

 occupation. If that intention or habit ceases, that is, if the animals 

 permanently dej)art from the premises of the owner, the rights acquired 

 by occupation are lost, and they will become the property of the first 

 taker. It is this liability to change in ownership resulting from the loss 

 of control by man, to which writers refer when they speak of qualified 

 property in animals ferce naturcc, as distinguished from that full, com- 

 plete, aI>solute ])roperty tliat may be lost only by the consent, express 

 or implied, of the owner. 



