The Minneapolis journal., 1904-07-29
CITY NEWS.
WHO WILL OWN
THAT METEORITE?
PERPLEXING QUESTION WHICH
MAY CAUSE LITIGATION.
Some Authorities Think the Heavenly
Visitor Would Belong to the State,
While Others Believe the Man on
Whose Land 1t Was Found Would
Have Title.
If that meteorite is found, who'll

II that meteorite is found, who'll
get it?
State Geologist N. H. Winchell is
spending time and money hunting for
the heavenly visitor, but if he finds
it, as he says he may, on Farmer Ly-
mans place, east of Northfield or
nearby, what will Farmer Lyman or
his neighbor say? The countryman
may decide that the aerolite will
make an excellent hitchingpost and
stick it up outside the front gate.
Or maybe he'll hear, somehow, that
meteorites are worth from so cents
pound to 81 an ounce, according to
the demand, and, after, calculating the
value of the big chunk of stone or
iron, whichever it is, be reluctant to
part with it.
Then what'll the state do? What
can 1t do? Lawyers who were asked
about the matter today said it was
a question that might develop some
very interesting litigation, bearing as
1t would upon the disposition of these
mysterious orbs that stub their toes
on hurdle in their grand steeple-
chase thru the solar system and
tumble to earth.
DR.. Hall, professor of geology at
the university, had no doubt that in
case the ''U'' decided that it wanted
the visitor, means would be found to
secure it. However," admitted the
professor, there might be a question
raised in regard to the ownership of
the aerolite."
The old English law held that any
mineral wealth uncovered by the
owner of real estate after he gained
possession Of the land, when such
land was not sold as mineral bearing
property, reverted to the crown. This
thorities, has since been changed, but
it might have certain bearing on
the case.
Some Analogous Cases Yet.
County Attorney Fred Boardman
and said: ="
well, the case Is rather peculiar
and l have never looked the matter
up, but I should say offhand that the
whose land it fell. For instance:
The owner of land Is certainly enti-
tied to the rain and snow that fall
on it. If q bubbling geyser should
break out on his land and the waters
should be found to contain wonderful
be entitled to it. If this geyser should
throw UP some valuable deposit it
would certainly be his.
These things, of course, would
come from below, but see no reason
why the same should not apply to
duyylHlIS ldllluS lIOul dDONe. oup-
pose that the meteor fell at an angle,
as it undoubtedly did, and instead of
burying itself in the ground had
struck a house, killing some Of the
occupants and doing other serious
damage. The owner would certainly
have no ground for action against the
state. I should want to look the mat
ter up, but If it fell on my property I
should certainly lay claim to it."
We'll, that's rather good" said
Freeman P. Lane. II think that there
would be little doubt that the owner
of the land would be the owner Of the
meteor. It could hardly belong to
the discoverer, for the reason that
altho he might have discovered 1t, he
had not subdued 1t. For instance, If
I saw a swarm of bees flying over my
land and followed them to a tree on
my neighbor's property I could lay
no claim to them.'
A Precedent.
F. III. Carpenter said: Unless I am
much mistaken, such a case has been
already tried in the courts and the
decision given to the owner Of the
land. This may have since been re-
versed, but I remember a case and
think I can find it now."
Mr.. Carpenter found record Of a
case tried in Iowa under similar cir
cumstances in which the aerolite was
awarded the owner Of the land.
The consensus of opinion seems to
be that the propertyowner would
have the best of the case, but there
are exponents of the other side. One
lawyer said that the state would or
could undoubtedly claim 1t, another,
that 1t would belong to the finder, and
still another to the occupant of the
land VI Nhether owner or lessee.