Case Name: MOSES ALLEN against ELEANOR ALLEN
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1830-09
Citations: 2 Pen. & W. 166
Docket Number: 
Parties: MOSES ALLEN against ELEANOR ALLEN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Penrose & Watts)
Volume: 2
Pages: 166–167

Head Matter:
MOSES ALLEN against ELEANOR ALLEN.
IN EUROS.
putting- a,mare .to pasture, in consideration of her services, does not create a temporary-ownership in the person with whom she was put, so as to entitle him .to the increase.
The person-to whom the mare is put thus is a naked bailee.
Error to Crawford county.
This was an action of trover., brought to recover the price of •a mare and two colts, by Eleanor AUen against Moses Allen.
The mare belonged t.o the plaintiff; the evidence .of the manner in which the defendant obtained the possession of her and her colts, was thus'stated by a -witness.:
“The plaintiff told the defendant, she had brought'her mare there to be kept for her service or work ; that she, had no pasture. Defendant said, he would keep her for her work, arid that he liked to tide her. Plaintiff said, it was uncertain how long she would leave her there. Defendant said, it was no difference how long she would leave her, that-her work was well worth her keeping.”
During the time the mare was with the defendant, she had two colts, and whether the plaintiff -or defendant was the owner of them, was the question in this cause.
The defendant’s counsel requested the Court to charge thejury that the eolts, under the facts given" in evidence, were the property of the defendant. But the Court (Shippen, President,) was of a different opinion, and so charged thejury; which'wa® assigned as error.
Banks for plaintiff.In error.
Cited, 2 Kent’s Com. 294.
S. B. Foster, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
There was clearly no hiring for a definite time, to constitute the defendant a temporary owner, which was necessary to entitle him to the increase. The transaction was a letting of pasture, in consideration of services to be rendered by the animal depastured, a contract altogether different from that of hiring. The plaintiff could, at any time, have taken the animal away without the consent of the defendant who was a naked bail-lee He was therefore not entitled to the direction which he required, and it was not error to withhold it.
Judgment affirmed.