248 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 



with the consent of her owner, was held not to 

 give him a title to the colts. The fact that one 

 owned the mare when the colts were born was com- 

 petent evidence for jury on an issue of ownership 

 of the colts. ^^ This question would have been an- 

 swered if the party caring for the mare had made 

 a written contract with the owner. Where one 

 hires a mare for use in breeding, the increase of 

 the animal belongs to the hirer.^'^ The progeny 

 of a mare which is the separate property of a wife 

 is also her separate propertj^ ; *^'^ but the owner- 

 ship of the mare by the wife should be capable of 

 proof by documentary evidence, though not neces- 

 sarily so. 



Putting a mare in pasture in consideration of 

 her services does not entitle the owner of the pas- 

 ture to the increase.*'^ When stock is loaned the 

 ownership of the increase is in the loaner.^- But 

 if the stock be hired for a definite period the own- 

 ership of the increase belongs to the usufructu- 

 ary,^^ for at that time he has an ownership in the 

 dam.*'^ A colt born to a mortgaged mare is held 

 also under the mortgage.*^^ A colt foaled after 



58 Morse v. Patterson, 1 Kas. 154 ; Putnam v. Wyley, 8 Johns. 



App. 577, 42 Pac. 255. 432; Concklin v. Havens, 12 



59McCarty v. Blevins, 13 Johns. 314; Wood v. Ash, 



Tenn. 195, 26 Am. Dec. 262. (Eng.) Owen 139; August 



GoKelley v. Grundy, 20 Ky. Brandt & Co. v. Verhagen, 152 



L. 1081, 45 S. W. 100. N. W. 448. 



61 Allen V. Allen, 2 P. & W. er. Kellogg v. Loveley, 46 

 166. Mich. 131, 8 N. W. 699, 41 Am. 



62 0rser v. Storms, 9 Cow. R. 151; Stewart v. Ball, 33 Mo. 

 687. 154; Sawyer v. Gerrish, 70 Me. 



63 2 Kent 360. 254, Am. Eng. Enc. of Law, 



64 Garth v. Everett, 16 Mo. 349. 

 490; Stewart v. Ball, 33 Mo. 



