fusion.-Under this heading there are three subdivisions that may be termed natural increase, accession and confusion.

532. Title by natural increase.-The owner of property is entitled to its increase whether produced by nature or by industry. The owner of a cow, for example, becomes the owner of a calf to which she gives birth.

533. Title by accession.-Chattels attached to lands without the consent of the owner, in such a way as to become a part of the realty, belong to the proprietor of the land, and the owner has only an action for damages for the conversion of his property. So if one chattel becomes inseparably united with another, the unit is the property of the owner of the principal chattel. The owner of the other or accessory chattel may bring an action for conversion. If, however, the chattels are approximately similar, as for example the links of a chain, the owners are regarded as having an estate in common of the joint product.

534. Value of chattels.-The respective value of chattels do not determine which is principal and which accessory; the principal is the one which gives its name and character to the whole. The owner of property of similar value may add property belonging to another of much greater value and bestow on it his own labor or skill in such a way as to create something entirely new. The product will be his, but the owner of the valuable chattel, of course, may bring an action for conversion. The principal ingredient, as it were, of the product is the owner's skill. The same rule applies where a workman bestows work on another's chattel without adding any property of his own. If, however, the chattel is more valuable and generally of more

account than the skill bestowed, the chattel will remain the property of its first owner, provided, of course, there is not a complete change of identity. In many states the courts have held that labor bestowed by a workman on property known not to be his, will be unavailing in transferring the title from the owner of the chattel to the workman, for the latter will not be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong.

EXAMPLES

407. A, as chauffeur for X, places on X's automobile a new carburetor which he finds in the garage in which the automobile is kept. The owner of the carburetor may not compel its removal, but may sue X for conversion.

408. A is an artist employed as an illustrator by X. He uses some of X's canvas in painting a picture for himself. The picture will be the property of A, but X may sue A for the value of the canvas.

409. A, who is employed by X as a carpenter, uses X's wood in making a bookcase for himself. He uses, however, his own varnish. It is shown that one-half the time consumed in making the bookcase was taken from A's regular working hours. The bookcase will belong to X, for the wood is more valuable than the varnish and the labor used belonged one-half to X and one-half to A.

thinking they beThe value of the

410. A gathers apples from B's property longed to A. He makes cider out of them. apples was $25, and the value of A's labor in converting them into cider is $10. The cider belongs to B.

411. If in the above example A had known the apples belonged to B, and his labor had been worth $50, the cider, nevertheless, would be the property of B, for A could not take advantage of his wrong-doing.

535. Title by confusion.-Where property is intermingled by consent or by innocent confusion, the owners of the several parts will each be entitled to his aliquot

portion of the whole. If, however, the confusion is willful, the one causing it can claim his share only upon clear and decisive proof of the amount belonging to him which is contained in the mass. Unless he can do this the whole mass is forfeited to the innocent party.

536. Transfer of personal property by gift.-A gift is a transfer of property without consideration. The law recognizes two kinds: inter vivos and mortis causa.

A gift inter vivos is an absolute transfer of property delivered with intent to transfer as a gift. Delivery is essential, for a mere promise to give is unenforcible for lack of consideration. Delivery may be by symbol, as where a warehouse receipt is transferred instead of the goods which it represents. Where the object of the gift is already in the possession of the donee, some clear expression of intention to transfer the title of the property as a gift is sufficient without delivery. A deed of gift properly executed and delivered will render unnecessary the delivery of the object itself. It has been held that where a check or order on a bank is given as a gift, but the money is not actually obtained before the death of the donor, the gift is ineffective.

Gifts mortis causa are made in contemplation of imminent death. If the donor recovers, the gift may be revoked, or he may revoke it before death. It is often a difficult question of fact to determine whether a person in imminent danger of death makes an unconditional gift inter vivos, or a conditional gift mortis causa. Gifts mortis causa must be delivered in the lifetime of the donor. In both kinds of gifts the delivery may be made to a third person for the benefit of the donee. Indeed a gift inter vivos may be made by a declaration of the donor that he holds the property for the benefit of the donee.

APPENDIX I

SHERMAN ANTI TRUST ACT

The following is the full text of the Federal Anti-Trust Act, generally called "The Sherman Act," and entitled "an act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies," approved July 2, 1890.

"Section 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, is hereby de clared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract, or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

"Section 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

"Section 3. Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such territory and another, or between any such territory or territories and any state or states or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any state or states or foreign nations, is hereby declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in