O.C.G.A. § 44-1-10 (2019)
Ownership of offspring of domestic or owned animals
The offspring of all animals follows the ownership of the mother and belongs to the owner of the mother at the time of birth.
History
(Orig. Code 1863, § 2222; Code 1868, § 2216; Code 1873, § 2242; Code 1882, § 2242; Civil Code 1895, § 3075; Civil Code 1910, § 3651; Code 1933, § 85-1705.)
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS instrument itself. Such increase may be sold by the mortgagor as the mortgagor’s own, and a purchaser from the mortgagor gets a good title as against the mortgagee. Dixon v. Pierce, 22 Ga. App. 291, 95 S.E. 995 (1918). Payment of foaling fee or for feeding does not alone give title. - Mere fact that the defendant might have paid the foaling fee or fed colts could not give the defendant title, unless there was an express contract to this effect. Walton v. Mitchell, 11 Ga. App. 159, 74 S.E. 1006 (1912). Cited in Anderson & Conley v. Leverette, 116 Ga. 732, 42 S.E. 1026 (1902); Johnson v. Stevens, 19 Ga. App. 192, 91 S.E. 220 (1917).
Declaratory of common law. - This statute confers no additional rights on a mortgagee. It is simply a statement of the common-law rule that ‘‘the brood belongs to the owner of the dam or mother, - partus sequitur ventrem.’’ Dixon v. Pierce, 22 Ga. App. 291, 95 S.E. 995 (1918) (see O.C.G.A. § 44-1-10). Effect of mortgage on increase of domestic animals. - Inasmuch as a mortgage in this state does not transfer title, but gives only a lien on the property included therein, a mortgage on domestic animals does not cover the increase thereof if there is no express mention of such increase in the
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL laws and rules and regulations of the state in hunting or capturing a game or wild animal, the individual obtains a property right in the animal good against any other person. When an animal ferae naturae is captured or reduced to possession in violation of the applicable laws and rules and regulations, however, no property right vests in the person capturing or killing such animal. 1973 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 73-35.
Former Code 1933, §§ 85-1703 and 85-1705 (see O.C.G.A. §§ 44-1-8 and 44-1-10) did not conflict with state’s exercise of control over and ownership of animals ferae naturae, but merely set out the method by which individuals could gain property rights in such animals when allowed to do so by the laws of the state. 1973 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 73-35. Ownership of game and wild animals. - When an individual has complied with the
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Property, § 26.
C.J.S. - 3B C.J.S., Animals, § 6.