BEKS. 19 



to their produce as eggs or honey. The reason on which 

 the law about animals is founded is wholly inapplicable to the 

 honey, but this case tacitly assumes that no distinction is to 

 be drawn." «» 



If bees have been reclaimed and hived they remain prop- 

 erty, notwithstanding a temporary escape, the owner keep- 

 ing them in sight and marking the tree into which they en- 

 tered, and, if he can identify them, they belong to him, not 

 to the owner of the soil. The property draws after it posses- 

 sion sufficient to enable the owner of the bees to maintain 

 trespass against a third person who cuts down the tree, de- 

 stroys the bees, and takes the honey, though such owner him- 

 self is liable to trespass for entering on the land of another. 

 "It is said the owner of the soil is entitled to the tre^,and all 

 within it. This may be true so far as respects an unl?eclaimed 

 swarm. . . . But if animals fera naturce that have been re- 

 el-aimed, and a qualified property obtained in them, escape into 

 the private grounds of another in a way that does not restore 

 them to their natural condition, a dififerent rule obviously 

 applies. They are then not exposed to become the prop- 

 erty of the first occupant. The right of the owner continues, 

 and though he cannot pursue and take them without, being 

 liable for a trespass, still this difficulty should not operate as 

 an abandonment of the animals to their former liberty, . . . 

 This case is distinguishable from the cases of Gillet Vj Mason. 

 . . and Ferguson v. Miller [cited supra] . . . . The first 

 presented a question between the finder and a person inter- 

 ested in the soil, the other between two persons, each claim- 

 ing as the first findo^ The plaintiff in the last case, though 

 the first finder, had not acquired a qualified property in the 

 owner according to the Jaw of prior 'occupancy. " The de- 

 fendant had. Besides, the swarm being unreclaimed from 

 their natural liberty while in the tree, belonged to the owner 

 of the soil ratione soli." ""^ 



" 5 Harv. L. Rev. 404 ™ Goff v. Kilts, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 550. 



