46 DOMESTIC ANIMALS. 



the authorities holding that a naked bailee of animals is not 

 entitled to their increase. 



A contract that all the colts to be foaled by mares sold by 

 A. to B. and kept in A.'s stables under B.'s care are to belong 

 to B. is valid and not void as against creditors for want of de- 

 livery.2" So an agreement for a valuable consideration to 

 deliver to plaintifif the first female colt that defendant's mare 

 might produce vests a property in the colt when born, by 

 reason of which trover may be maintained.^^ A mare with 

 foal having been sold on condition that the title was to remain 

 in the seller till the price was paid, the title of the colt when 

 foaled remains in the seller till the performance of the condi- 

 tion. ^^ And the same is true as to colts subsequently bred 

 from a mare.^® Where a dam is sold, reserving an unborn 

 foal, the latter when born may be recovered by the seller in 

 replevin from one who before its birth bought the dam from 

 the purchaser without notice of the reservation.^* And 

 where A. agreed with B. that his horse should go to B.'s mare 

 gratis provided the produce should belong to C, it was held 

 that the property in such produce was thereby vested in C. 

 and that he could recover from a purchaser from B.^^ But, 

 in a Michigan case, where the mare was bred to the plaintifif's 

 stallion in shares and several months afterwards was sold to 

 the defendant, who knew of the breeding but not of an ar- 

 rangement by which the plaintifif was to have a half-interest 

 in the colt, it was held that the contract was executory and 



'° Hull V. Hull, 48 Conn. 250. And see Wolcott v. Hamilton, 61 Vt. 79. 



'' Fonville v. Casey, i Murph. (N. C.) 389. 



"^ Allen V, Delano, 55 Me. 113. 



" Elmore v. Fitzpatrick, 56 Ala. 400; Buckmaster v. Smith, 22 Vt. 203. 



And see Nicholson v. Temple, 20 N. B. 248. 



A deed reserving as security for the purchase money "all the crops pro- 

 duced and products raised or grown hereafter on said premises," was held 

 not to cover the increase of stock kept on the premises: Desany v. Thorp 

 (Vt.), 39 Atl. Rep. 309. 



" Andrews v. Cox, 42 Ark. 473. 



'° M'Carty v. Blevins, s Yerg. (Tenn.) 195. And see Maize v. Bowman, 

 93 Ky. 205, cited in § 106, infra. 



