E. A. Stephens & Co. v. Albers
256 P. 15, 81 Colo. 488 (1927)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where an animal that is part of a modern, valuable industry escapes, the owner does not lose title if the animal bears indicia of ownership and is captured by a party who has notice that it is not a wild animal, as the common law rule of ferae naturae is inapplicable to such modern conditions.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Albers was engaged in the business of breeding silver foxes and owned a specific fox, 'McKenzie Duncan,' which was registered and had identifying tattoo marks in its ears.
- McKenzie Duncan was of the second generation born in captivity, was sufficiently domesticated to take food by hand, and was kept in a specialized enclosure.
- In January 1926, the fox accidentally escaped from its enclosure; pursuit was commenced but abandoned due to nightfall.
- The following evening, a ranchman, located six miles away, discovered the fox near his chicken house and shot and killed it, being unaware of its specific nature or ownership.
- The ranchman gave the pelt to a trapper to sell on commission.
- The trapper sold the pelt for $75 to Defendant E. A. Stephens & Co., an expert fur dealer whose manager knew it was from a professional trapper, that the animal had been shot, and that it came from a ranch in the area.
- The tattoo marks on the pelt were still distinguishable upon inspection, but the defendant's manager did not check for indicia of ownership at the time of purchase.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Albers brought an action against Defendant E. A. Stephens & Co. in a Justice of the Peace court.
- The J.P. court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $300.00.
- The defendant appealed the decision to the county court.
- The county court, after a bench trial, entered a judgment for the plaintiff for the return of the property or payment of its value, set at $75.00.
- The defendant (plaintiff in error) brought this appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court on a writ of error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an owner of a semi-domesticated silver fox, bred in captivity as part of a recognized industry, lose property rights to the animal when it escapes, pursuit is abandoned, and it is killed and sold to a purchaser with notice of its probable origin?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Burke
No, the owner does not lose property rights under these circumstances. The court holds that the traditional common law rule regarding loss of title to escaped wild animals (ferae naturae) is inapplicable to the modern fur-breeding industry. The court reasoned that the basis for the old rule—that such animals had no intrinsic value—is no longer valid in the context of a multi-million dollar industry where animals are bred, registered, and marked as valuable property. Given the existence of this industry, the indicia of ownership on the fox (tattoos), and the fact that the defendant was an expert dealer who should have been aware of the pelt's unusual characteristics (shot holes), the court must apply general principles of justice and custom. These principles dictate that the plaintiff, whose title was acquired through significant investment, should not be divested of her property. Therefore, the defendant obtained no title against the plaintiff.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant judicial adaptation of property law to modern commercial realities. By refusing to apply the rigid common law doctrine of ferae naturae, the court protected a new and valuable industry that did not exist when the rule was formulated. The case establishes a precedent that property rights in escaped animals from such industries are not automatically lost, shifting the analysis to a more context-sensitive inquiry. This approach considers factors like the nature of the industry, indicia of ownership, and the knowledge of the person acquiring the animal, thereby influencing how courts might treat ownership disputes over other types of valuable, semi-domesticated, or genetically modified animals in the future.
