558 
LAWS RELATING TO BEES 
305, 40 L. R. A. 687, it was held that the 
mere finding of bees in a tree oh the land 
of another did not give the finder any title 
to the bees or to the tree. The facts were, 
one Stevens who found the bees trespassed 
on the land and hived the bees in a gum 
belonging to another. The defendant Repp 
removed the bees from where they had been 
hived and was for that act arrested and 
tried for larceny, Stevens, the man who 
hived the bees, being the complaining' wit¬ 
ness. The trial court convicted Repp, and 
'the case was appealed to the Iowa Supreme 
Court. The court reversed the trial court, 
and in rendering the decision, Justice Ladd 
said: “The title to a thing ferae naturae 
cannot be created by the act of one who was 
at the moment a trespasser, and Stevens 
obtained no interest in the bees by the 
mere wrongful transfer of the bees from 
the tree to the gum. Having neither title 
nor possession he had no interest then in 
the subject of the larceny. As the infor¬ 
mation alleged ownership in Stevens, and 
the case was tried on that theory, we need 
make no inquiry as to any taking from 
Cody (the owner of the land).” 
WHERE BEES SHOULD BE LOCATED. 
Bees should be located by their owner so 
that in the natural course of events they 
will not molest others. If a keeper of bees 
locates his bees so that they will be prone 
to attack other people or their horses he is 
guilty of negligence. A case in point is 
Parsons vs. Manser, 119 Iowa 92, 62 L. 
R. A. 132, decided in 1903, the facts of 
the case being that the beekeeper had a 
hitching post in front of his house. This 
post was located in the public highway; 
about 25 feet from the post, but in the 
beekeeper’s yard, there were two bee-gums. 
The plaintiff, Parsons, was a medicine ped¬ 
dler. He called at Manser’s house and tied 
his horse to the hitching post. The bees 
attacked the horses and stung them to 
death.* The beekeeper was held liable for 
the death of the horses, as the evidence 
showed that he was aware of the fact that 
the bees would attack horses when hitched 
to the post, A beekeeper is not liable, 
however, unless he has been negligent. In 
other words, the beekeeper must have been 
at fault, and if thru no fault of the bee¬ 
keeper some other person is injured, the 
beekeeper is not liable. It was so held in a 
New York case, Earl vs. Van Alstine, 8 
Barb. 630, which was an action for dam¬ 
ages caused by plaintiff’s horses being 
stung, resulting in the death of one of the 
horses. 
EARL VS. VAN. ALSTINE. 
The facts in this case were: That Van 
Alstine was the owner of 15 hives of bees. 
The bees were kept in his yard, adjoining 
the public highway. Earl, the plaintiff in 
the case, was traveling along the highway 
with a team of horses, and when he passed 
Van Alstine’s place the bees attacked his 
horses and stung them so severely one died. 
Action was brought in the Justice’s 
Court and Earl secured judgment for the ^ 
sum of $7.25 and costs. The case was 
appealed to the County Court of Wayne 
County where the judgment was reversed. 
From the County Court the case was ap¬ 
pealed to the Supreme Court, Seventh Ju¬ 
dicial District, which court affirmed the de¬ 
cision of the County Court, the decision 
being of date June 4, 1850. 
The opinion was written by Justice Sel- 
den, and he discussed very thoroly the 
questions involved, the opinion being in 
part as follows: 
This case presents two questions: 
1. Is any one who keeps bees liable, at all 
events, for any injury they may do? 
• 2. Did the defendant keep those bees in an 
improper manner or place, so as to render 
him liable on that account? 
It is insisted by the plaintiff that, while 
the proprietor of animals of a tame or do¬ 
mestic nature (domitae naturae) is liable 
for injuries done by them (aside from tres¬ 
passes upon the soil) only after notice of 
some vicious habit or propensity of such 
animal; that one who keeps animals ferae 
naturae is, responsible at all events for any 
injury they may do, and that as bees belong 
to the latter class, it follows, of course, that 
the defendant is liable. 
In order to determine this question, upon 
which no direct or controlling authority ex¬ 
ists that I have been able to find, it becomes 
.necessary to look into the principles upon 
which one who owns or keeps animals is 
liable for their vicious acts. It will be found 
upon examination of the authorities upon 
this subject that this classification of ani¬ 
mals by the common law into animals ferae 
naturae and domitae naturae has reference 
mainly, if not exclusively, to right of prop¬ 
erty which may be acquired in them; those 
of the latter class being the subject of ab- 
