## Facts

- Albers operated a commercial silver-fox farm, keeping registered foxes in enclosures and marking them with ear registration numbers.
- A valuable fox escaped when a gate was accidentally left open; Albers pursued it but lost track of it after dark.
- A neighboring rancher later shot and killed the fox and gave the carcass to a trapper to sell on commission.
- The trapper sold the pelt to E.A. Stephens & Co., a fur dealer.
- Stephens & Co.’s manager, experienced in the fur trade, noticed the fox had been shot several times and knew the trapper was not the owner and had not obtained the pelt from the owner.
- The manager did not inspect the ears for ownership marks, though the ear marks were visible on the pelt introduced at trial.
- Albers sued for return of the pelt or its value; the case turned on whether ownership persisted after escape and killing.

## Issues

1. Whether the owner of a captive, marked silver fox retains a property interest after the fox accidentally escapes and is killed by another.
2. Whether a fur dealer purchasing the pelt from a non-owner acquires good title as a bona fide purchaser, defeating the original owner’s claim in replevin.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed judgment for Albers.
- The court held Albers retained a property right in the escaped fox and its pelt because the fox had been reduced to possession, kept in captivity, and marked for identification.
- The court held Stephens & Co. acquired no title from the trapper and was liable in replevin for return of the pelt or payment of its value.
- The affirmed remedy was return of the pelt or, if return was not possible, payment of $75 as its value (as fixed by the county court).

## Legal Principles

- A person who captures a wild animal, keeps it in confinement as part of an ongoing operation, and marks it for identification holds a property interest that is not necessarily lost by an accidental, temporary escape.
- Visible ownership marks supporting identification weigh against treating an escaped captive animal as unowned wildlife upon recapture or killing.
- A buyer cannot receive better title than the seller possesses; purchase from a non-owner does not defeat the true owner’s rights in replevin.
- A commercial buyer’s failure to check readily observable ownership indicia, combined with knowledge that the seller is not the owner, defeats claims of innocent purchase.

## Conclusion

The court treated the captive, registered silver fox as property whose ownership survived unintended escape, and it required the fur dealer that bought the pelt from a non-owner—despite circumstances indicating defective title—to return the pelt or pay its adjudicated value.


E.A. Stephens & Co. v. Albers, 81 Colo. 488, 256 P. 15 (Colo. 1927)