MORTGAGE OF ANIMALS AND THEIR INCREASE. 107 



tice of the mortgagor's rights and interests nor anything to 

 put them upon inquiry." ^** 



Thus, as against an attaching creditor of the mortgagor, 

 a mortgage of a mare covers her colt at least until it is weaned 

 or should be weaned according to the course of nature or the 

 usual custom of horse raisers.^^* And a mortgage upon a 

 "mare in foal" covers the colt as against one who purchases it 

 within the usual period of nurture.^^^ 



It was said in Darling v. Wilson :^^^ "If the mortgage 

 covers the increase of the particular animals mortgaged, so 

 that they cannot be sold to an innocent purchaser or attached 

 by an innocent creditor, it would, for the same reason, cover 

 the increase of the increase to an indefinite period, and no 

 person would be safe in purchasing live animals of one who 

 had at any time made a mortgage upon his live stock, without 

 examining into the pedigree of the animal and ascertaining 

 Avhether some of its ancestors were among those mortgaged, 

 however great the inconvenience or expense in so doing. 

 This is not the law." 



In the same case it is said: "There being nothing in the 

 mortgage showing an intention to create a lien upon the in- 

 crease of stock mortgaged, the lien existing only as an in- 

 cident to the mortgage would, as between the parties, con- 

 tinue so long only as is necessary for the suitable nurture of 

 the increase. This view is supported upon sound principles." 

 But, commenting on this latter statement, it is said in Funk 

 V. Paul, cited supra : "To our minds this view cannot be sus- 

 tained upon sound principles. The lien was created by the 

 mortgage and, so far as the mortgage is concerned, was en- 

 tirely independent of the nurture. The mortgage was a valid 

 lien upon the increase as against the mortgagor in possession, 

 and he necessarily knew when the mortgage was given, the 

 young dropped and the period of gestation, and hence there 

 would seem to be no valid reason for terminating the lien as 



'^ Funk V. Paul, 64 Wis. 35. '** Rogers v. Highland, 69 la. 504. 



"° Edmonston v. Wilson, 49 Mo. App. 491. "'" 60 N. H. 59, cited supra. 



