108 SALE AND MORTGAGE. 



against the mortgagor merely because the period of "suitable 

 nurture' had passed. Such nurture did not give the lien, and 

 its termination could not take it away as against the mort- 

 gagor. As to such mortgagor, the question of notice or in- 

 sufficiency of description is not involved, for he had actual 

 notice that such increase was, in fact, covered by the mort- 

 gage." 



So in Meyer v. Cook,^^^ it is said on the same point : "We 

 are at a loss to conjecture on what principle such a distinction 

 can be maintained. We apprehend, however, that all such 

 seeming rulings rest on an entirely different principle. The 

 exception has been allowed only in favor of boim fide pur- 

 chasers who, finding such offspring in the possession of the 

 mother, arbiter of its own movements and not following the 

 dam, purchased and paid for the same, without notice of the 

 mortgage lien." 



The words "increase of the sheep," in a mortgage of a cer- 

 tain number of branded sheep, were held to mean the natural 

 increase of the original sheep mortgaged and not to include 

 additions made to the flock by purchase, though in substitu- 

 tion of those specified in the original mortgage.^^* A deed of 

 trust on a flock of sheep including "increase and all appen- 

 dages thereto" conveys the wool afterwards sheared from the 

 sheep. ^-^ A mortgage lien on sheep and their wool is subject 

 to the necessary expense of shearing, storing and marketing 

 the wool.^^** A mortgage of a horse and "all earnings 



-''' 85 Ala. 417, cited supra. 



'"' Webster v. Power, L. R. 2 P. C. 69. 



A mortgage of cows and calves "that may be raised during the season" 

 covers calves that are carried at the time the mortgage is given: Cleve- 

 land V. Koch, 108 Mich. 514. 



A mortgage of mares "and all increase of said mares and the increase 

 of the increase" covers colts foaled after the mortgage was executed: 

 Hopkins Fine Stock Co. v. Reid, 106 la. 78. 



""Hobbs V. First Nat. Bk. (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 S. W. Rep. 331. And 

 see .'^Llferitz v. Ingalls, 83 Fed. Rep. 964; Cox v. Beck, Ibid. 269. 



'™ Cox V. Beck, supra. 



