138 The Frederick G erring, Jr. 



• 



abandoned he loses every claim or right to the animal. In such 

 cases, therefore, fishing or hunting is not terminated till the animal 

 is actually captured. 



The best interpreters of the Roman law hold that wild animals 

 are not possessed till they are actually and beyond peradventure 

 in our power. 



Domat, says:^ 



Wild beasts, fowls, fishes, and everything that is taken, 

 either in hunting, fowling or fishing, by those who have a 

 right thereto, belong to them as their property by virtue of 

 the seizure which they maJce of them. 



The original text says more : 



Les betes sauvages, les oiseaux, les poissons et tout ce 

 que peuvent prendre, ou a la chasse ou a la peche, ceux qui 

 en ont le droit, leur sont acquis en propre par la prise qui 

 les ?net en leurs mains. 



Savigny, Jus Possessionis, says :' 



Wild animals are only possessed so long as some special 

 disposition (custodia) exists, which enables us actually to 

 get them into our power. It is not every custodia, therefore, 

 which is sufficient ; whoever, for instance, keeps wild animals 

 in a park, or fish in a lake, has undoubtedly done something 

 to secure them, but it does not depend on his mere will, but 

 on a variety of accidents, whether he can actually catch them 

 when he wishes ; consequently, possession is not here retained ; 

 quite otherwise with fish kept in a stew, or animals in a yard, 

 because then they may be caught at any moment. 



Puffendorf says:' 



With regard to things movable, every one agrees that, 

 in order to appropriate the same by right of first occupation, 

 the possession must be bodily, and that it is necessary that 



iLiv. 3 tit. 7, 2 par. 7. 

 ^Perry's ed., p. 257. 

 •Lib. 4, cap. 6, s. 9. 



