106 SALE AND MORTGAGE. 



any importance to that circumstance. On the contrary, the 

 decision in each of those cases was based upon the legal prop- 

 osition that the title of the offspring follows the title of the 

 dam or mother — 'partus sequitur ventrem.' The only case 

 we have been able to find in which the time of conception has 

 been treated as of any moment in determining the ownership 

 of young animals born of mortgaged females is that of Thorpe 

 z^. Cowles. . . . Whether it [i.^., the instruction in that case] 

 would have been so 'regarded' if challenged does not appear. 

 No reason is given nor authority cited in its support. Cob- 

 bey incorporates the substance of that instruction into his 

 text as an independent proposition, and cites that case but 

 none other to support it : Cobbey Chat. Mort. § 367. Not 

 only does that case stand alone, but it seems to us to be with- 

 out any sound reason to sustain it." 



In California, however, where by statute the chattel mort- 

 gagor is not divested of his title, it was held that the mort- 

 gagee is not entitled to a lien on the increase of animals be- 

 gotten after the execution of the mortgage.^^^ 



After the period of nurture of the young has passed, the 

 mortgage can be no longer enforced as against botia -fide pur- 

 chasers and incumbrancers without notice whose titles are 

 subsequent to the date of weaning.^^^ "As to them the period 

 of nurture being passed and the young being entirely separ- 

 ated from the mother and not being mentioned in the mort- 

 gage, nor any longer connected with the mother covered by 

 the mortgage, they have neither actual nor constructive no- 



'" Shoobert v. De Motta, 112 Cal. 215, refusing to follow First Nat. Bk. 

 V. West. Mort. & Inv. Co., 86 Tex. 636. cited supra and infra, where the 

 statute was similar. The court did not decide whether, if the lambs had 

 been in gestation at the date of the mortgage, the mortgagee would have 

 had a lien. But in First Nat. Bk. v. Erreca, 116 Cal. 81, it was held that 

 a mortgage of sheep does not extend the lien thereof to wool thereafter 

 grown or lambs in gestation at its date. 



"^Winter v. Landphere, 42 la. 471; Darling v. Wilson, 60 N. H. 59; 

 Fnright v. Dodge. 64 Vt. 502; Desany v. Thorp (Vt), 39 Atl. Rep. 309; 

 Cox V. Beck, 83 Fed. Rep. 269. Otherwise, in Maryland: Cahoon v. 

 Miers. 67 Md. 573. 



