ANIMUS REVERTENDI. 7 



for he hath animum revertendi. So are my pigeons that are 

 flying at a distance from their home (especially of the carrier 

 kind), and likewise the deer that is chased out of my park or 

 forest, and is instantly pursued by the keeper or forester ; all 

 which remain still in my possession, and I still preserve my 

 qualified property in them. But if they stray without my 

 knowledge and do not return in the usual manner, it is then 

 lawful for any stranger to take them. But if a deer, or any 

 wild animal reclaimed, hath a collar or other mark put upon 

 him, and goes and returns at his pleasure, or if a wild swan is 

 taken and marked and turned loose in the river, the owner's 

 property in him still continues, and it is not lawful for anyone 

 else to take him ; but otherwise if the deer has been long ab- 

 sent without returning, or the swan leaves the neighbor- 

 hood." '2 



So, in the civil law, Gaius says : "In respect of such ani- 

 mals as are in the habit of going and returning, as pigeons 

 and bees and deer, which are accustomed to go into the woods 

 and come again, we have this traditional rule that if they 

 cease to have the intention of returning, they also cease to be 

 ours and become the property of the first taker; now they 

 appear to cease to have the animus revertendi when they have 

 discontinued their habit of returning." ^^ 



Before the Behring Sea arbitrators Sir Charles Russell 

 argued that the animus revertendi conferred the right of prop- 

 erty in animals at common law only when it was induced by 

 artificial means, such as taming them , or- offering them 

 food, and that this principle did not apply to the case of seals 

 which migrated and returned from natural causes, and the 

 decision of the arbitrators seems to sustain this view.^* This 

 theory may be compared with that with regard to bees re- 

 ferred to by Blackstone, viz. : That the only ownership in 

 them is ratione soli. He considers that the fact that the char- 



" 2 Bl. Com. 392. 



'' Gai. II § 67; Salkowski's Rom. Priv. Law § 83. 



'* See § 10, infra. 



