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.°8 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 property; ® 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.*t_ 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. 
App. 577, 42 Pac. 255. 
59 McCarty v. Blevins, 13 
Tenn. 195, 26 Am. Dec. 262. 
60 Kelley v. Grundy, 20 Ky. 
L. 1081, 45 S. W. 100. 
61 Allen v. Allen, 2 P. & W. 
166. 
62 Orser v. Storms, 9 Cow. 
687. 
632 Kent 360. 
64 Garth v. Everett, 16 Mo. 
490; Stewart v. Ball, 33 Mo. 
154; Putnam v. Wyley, 8 Johns. 
432; Concklin v. Havens, 12 
Johns. 314; Wood v. Ash, 
(Eng.) Owen 139; August 
Brandt & Co. v. Verhagen, 152 
N. W. 448. 
65 Kellogg v. Loveley, 46 
Mich. 131, 8 N. W. 699, 41 Am. 
R. 151; Stewart v. Ball, 33 Mo. 
154; Sawyer v. Gerrish, 70 Me. 
254, Am. Eng. Ene. of Law, 
349, 
