A claim was made for damages by the plaintiff bee-keeper, against the defendant, his neighbour. The plaintiff’s bees swarmed and settled in the garden of the defendant. He sought to recover his bees but the neighbour initially refused to give the plaintiff permission to enter his property. But on the next day, the neighbour gave permission to the beekeeper to enter his property. But the bees had flown.
Held: Bees are animals ferae naturae, but become the qualified property of the person who hives them.
‘There is no doubt in this case that these bees had been hived by the plaintiff. Therefore, before they swarmed, they were his property, and I think that the bees, when they swarmed, so long as they were in his sight, and so long as he had power to pursue them, would remain his property . . To that extent he has power to pursue, but I cannot think that he has a legal right to go on to the land of another in order to pursue them. Bees are ferae naturae before being hived. When hived, they are taken into the disposition of the owner, and become his property. They remain his property while they are swarming only so long as they are in his sight, and he has lawful power to pursue them. That is how I read the authorities. Whether the point is right or not, I think that, as a matter of legal principle, it is clear that, once it is established that he has no right to follow the bees, they cannot, the moment his right to follow ceases, be considered his or anybody’s chattels until they are hived again. For that reason, I think that this action is misconceived, because the bees had ceased altogether to be in the disposition of the plaintiff.’
Judges:
Slesser, Clauson and Goddard LJJ
Citations:
[1939] 1 KB 471, [1939] 1 All E R 65
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Borwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Animals, Land
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650627