44 DOMESTIC ANIMALS. 



increase of the increase ad inUnituni belongs to the owner of 

 the original stock.® Where cattle are a part of a married 

 woman's separate estate, their increase also belongs to the es- 

 tate.» In the Roman law, also, the brood belongs to the 

 owner of the mother, and Pufifendorf gives as the reason not 

 only the fact that the male is frequently unknown, but also 

 that the dam during the time of her pregnancy is almost use- 

 less to the owner and must be maintained with great expense 

 and care, so that he, being the loser by her pregnancy, ought 

 to be the gainer by her brood.^" But cygnets belong equally 

 to the owners of the cock and the hen, the reason already 

 given not holding here.^^ 



The owner of a limited estate in live stock as for life or 

 during widowhood, is entitled to the increase thereof during 

 the continuance of the estate.^^ But a tenant for life with 

 remainder over is bound to keep up the number of the orig- 

 inal stock.^^ And in a South Carolina case it is said : "Al- 

 though some of the articles may be consumable in the use and 



' Tyson v. Simpson, 2 Hayw. (N. C.) 147. 



° Gans V. Williams, 62 Ala. 41; Ellis v. State, y6 id. 90; Hanson v. Mil- 

 lett, 55 Me. 184. 



" 2 Bl. Com. 390. 



" The Case of Swans, 7 Rep. 17. "And the law thereof is founded on 

 a reason in nature; for the cock swan is an emblem or representation of 

 an aflfectionate and true husband to his wife above all other fowls; for 

 the cock swan holdeth himself to one female only, and for this cause nature 

 hath conferred on him a gift beyond all others; that is, to die so joyfully 

 that he sings sweetly when he dies; upon which the poet saith: 



Dulcia defecta modulatur carmina lingua, 

 Cantator, cygnus, funeris ipse sui, etc. 



And therefore this case of the swan doth diflfer from the case of kine, 

 or other brute beasts." 



" Lewis V. Davis, 3 Mo. 133; Major v. Herndon, 78 Ky. 123; Poindexter 

 V. Blackburn, 36 N. C. 286; Leonard v. Owen, 93 Ga. 678. 



See Flowers v. Franklin, 5 Watts (.Pa.) 265, where under the terms of a 

 will the increase was held to go after the widow's death to the remainder- 

 man, not to the personal representative. 



"i Schoul. Pers. Prop. § 142; Dunbar v. Woodcock, 10 Leigh (Va.) 

 628. 



