A'mtm'at

Any irrational being, as distinguished from man. In a common sense, a quadruped; not, a bird or a fowl. '^ In discussions in the cases as to what is included by " animals " in the law of property and of larceny, in duty laws, in statutes punishing malicious mischief, and the like, the term is limited by notions of property... Steadyprogresshasbeenmade toward the recognition of all sentient life as deserving legal protection, irrespective of the property aspect. >» ' An'-cil-la-ry, L. ancillaris, ancilla, a handmaid. »3B1. Com. 98. = Legal Tehder Cases, 12 WaU. 535 (1870). * 1 Pars. Contr. 141. 'Dupasseur v. Eochereau, 21 Wall. 136 (1874). •Forbes Street, 70 Pa. 138 (1871). ' Christmas v. Eusaell, 14 Wall. 83 (1871). 8 Cooper V. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 314 (1870). ' Claflin V. Mo Dermott, 12 P. E. 375 (1882). ■"IStory, Eq. §762. " 1 Story, Eq. § S83. 12 Wall V. Dovey, 60 Pa. 213 (1869). " 109 V. S. 20; 111 id. 522. So also an attachment may be, 48 Ark. 200; and one section in a charter to another section, 31 F. E. 318. >« Litchfield v. Cudworth, 15 Pick. 27 (1833); 14 id. 453; United States v. Fisk, 3 Wall. 447 (1865); Dumont v. United States, 98 U. S. 143 (1878); 65 Vt. 470. While the use in a particular context or statute may be limited by the general meaning and purpose, the term, in jurisprudence, may include any living creature not human or rational.! In a statute against cruelty to animals includes wild and noxious animals, unless -the purpose of -the statute or the context indicates a limited meaning." Animals are distinguished as domitce naturce, of a tame disposition; and feroe naturce, of a wild disposition — wild by nature. Animals of a ".base" nature are such as are not fit for food, but are kept for pleasure, curiosity or whim. In such animals as are of a tame nature, a man may have as absolute a property as in any inanimate being; because they continue pei-petuaily in his occupation, and will not stray from his house or person unless by accident or fraudulent enticement, in which cases the owner does not lose his property. The stealing or forcible abduction of such property is also felony: for these are things of intrinsic value, serving for the food of man or for the uses of husbandry. But in animals /erce naturce a man can have no absolute, merely a qualified, prop6];ty — per industriam^ by reclaiming and making them tame by art, industry, training, or by so confining them within his own immediate power that they cannot escape and use their natural Uberty \— propter impotentiam or ratione impotentiaz^ on account of their own inability, as, in yoxmg animals, imtil they can fly or run away; — propter privilegium, by virtue of privilege, as of game within a liberty. While these creatures, reclaimed from the wildness of their nature, thus continue qualified or defeasible property they are as much under the protection of the law as if the owner's absolutely and indefeasibly. It is also as much a felony to steal such of them as are fit for food as to. steal tame animals; but not so if they are kept only for pleasure, curiosity or whim, as dogs, bears, cats, parrots, singing-bii'ds:. because their value is then not intrinsic, but depends purely upon the caprice of the owner, though the taking is such an invasion of property as may amoimt to a civil injmy and be redressed by a civil action.' At common law larceny may be committed of a collar or chain attached to an animal not itself the subject of propertl.' A property in dpgs (g. v.) is now recognized under laws providing torjtheir registration and taxation." 7" — / ' [Abbott's Lay Diet.] 2 Conlmonweal'th v. Turner, 145 Mass. 300 (Nov. 23, 1887): f ub. Sts. ch. 207, § 53. ' 2 Bl. Com. 390-94. See also 3 Kent, 349-60; Buster V. Newkirk, 20 Johns. *75 (1822) — as to a deer wounded by one and captured by another person; State v. Ki-id Jr, 78 N. C. 482 (1878) — as to fish (in a pond?); Swift u Giflord, 2 Low. 112-15 (187J), cases,— as to a harpooned whale; Ghen v. Rich, 8 F. R. 159 (1881), oases,— as to a dead whale found floating. 7i The owner of an animal or the person who has the xclusive control of it is liable for injuries which he egligently suffers it to commit. This liability stands pon the ground of actual or presumed negligence. E the injury is committed while trespassing upon md the owner is responsible for damage directly realting as a natural consequence. In other cases he lay be liable although there is no trespass and the nim^l-is rightfully in its place; as where the injury omes from the vicious disposition or mischievous abits of the animal of which the owner had previous ctual notice; or where, without • actual notice, the. Isposition and habits are so universal among the pecies that notice is presumed, as in the case of wild nd savage beasts. The owner or keeper of such nimals, without actual or implied notice of their haracter, is bound at his peril to keep them at all imes and in all places properly secured, and is reponsible to any one who without fault in himself is ajured/by them.^ Animals fer(z w'otwrce, as a class, are known to be lischievous; and the rule is well settled that whoever ndertakes to keep any such animal in a place of niblic resort is or may be liable for injuries inflicted y it on a party who is without fault. It is not necesary to aver negligence in the keeper, as the burden is ■pon the defendant to disprove that implied imputaion; it is enough to aver ferocity in the animal and ihowledge of that fact in the defendant. Cei'tain aninals /ercE yiaturai may doubtless be domesticated to uch an extent they may be classed with tame aniaals; but as they are prone to relapse into their rild habits and to become mischievous, the rule is hat if they do so, and the owner becomes notified, hey will thereafter be viewed as not having been horoughly and safely domesticated. ^ See Accession; Agist; Alive; At Large; Bait, 2; Uttle; Cruelty, 3; Damage, Feasant; Distress; 2stray; Fence; Game, 1; Implements; Levant; Iaim, 2; Nuisance; Oyster; Partus; Pound, 2; iouND, 8 (2); Stock; 1; Team; Trespass; Vicious; Vakton; Waiiranty, 2; Warren; Worry; Wound. larrington v. Miles, 11 Kan. 483^84 (1873), oases; 15 Am. lep. 356, cases; State v. Doe, 79 Ind. 9 (1881), cases; Temison v. Southwestern E. Co., 75 Ga. 445 (1885). 1 Lyons v. Merrick, 105 Mass. 76 (1870), Colt, J.; Hewes \ Mc Namara, 106 id. 281 (1871); Mann v. Weiand, 81* >a. 258-55 (1875), cases; Marble v. Ross, 124 Mass. 47-49 1878), cases; Linnehan v. Sampson, 126 id. 510-11 1879), cases; Muller v. Mc Keeson, 73 N. Y. 198-204 (1878), lases; Lynch v. Mc NaUy, ih. 349 (1878); State u. Har- Iman, 75 Me. 662 (1884); 56 Ala. 402; 49 Conn. 113; 69 }a. 447; 75 111. 141; 88 id. 132; 35 Ind. 178; 34 Mich. 283; 17 Pa. 331; 15 id,. 188; 51 Vt. 18; 38 Wis. 307; 2 Alb. L. r. 101; 20 id,. 6, 104; 46 Am. E. 425. As to animals trespassing on a railroad track, see Cansas City, &c. E. Co. v. Kirksey, 48 Ark. 376 (1886),;ases. 2 Congress & Empire Spring Co. v. Edgar, 99 U. S. 31-66 (1878), Clifford, J., citing many cases. The plaint- £f below, one Mrs. Edgar, while visiting Congress Spring park, Saratoga, N. Y., was, injured by a deer. AIMTMns. L. Mind; disposition; intention, win. Animo. With, from, or in, mind or intention: as, in eo animo, ex animo, malo animo, quo animo, qq. v. Auimus, animuin (objective form), mind or intention, animo, with intention or design— caneellandi, of canceling; oapiendi, of seizing or taking; dedicandi, of dedicate ing or donating; defamandi, of defaming; donandi, of giving; ferandi, of stealing; lucrandi, of gaining; manendi, of remaining; movandi, of staying, remaining; possidendi, of possessing, appropriating; recipiendi, of receiving; republicandi, of republishing; revertendi, of returning; revocandi, of revoking: testandi, of making a will.