The copper era and Morenci leader., 1913-06-27
POPULAR TALKS ON LAW.
What Nature Adds To the Land.
By Walter K. Towers, A B., ]. D., oil
the Michigan Bar

By Walter K. Towers, A. B., J. D., of
the Michigan Bar.
John Goddard was the owner of an
Iowa farm which he leased to James
Elickson for the year of 1890 On
the second day of May in this year an
aerolite passed over Northern Iowa.
Peter Hoagland lived in farm adj
joining the Goddard property and it
CHANGED that a member of his family
watched the meteor and saw it plunge
to earth on the adjoining property.
Being told of this and directed to the
spit where it seemed to fall Hoag-
land went onto the Goddard farm the
next day and discovered the meteorite
buried in the ground to depth of
three feet. dickson, the tenant, was
present, but offered no objectiin, and
Hoagland dug up the visitor from the
heavens and transported it to his
house, claiming it for his own-prob-
ably believing in the doctl inc of find
ers keepers"
Three days later as opportunity Of
fered sHoagland sold the meteorite to
H " Winchell then Professor of
Geology at the University of Wiscon-
sin. When John Goddard heard of
this he Immediately felt that as the
aerolite had fallen on his property it
had become his and that Hoagland
had no rights therein. He decided
to enforce his rights against Professor
Winchel1. Winchell having purchas-
ed from Hoagland had not better
rights than the man from whom he
bought. If Hoagland had no rights
to the meteorite Winchell could not
retain it against the claims of the
rightful owner.
The court which tried the case ruled
that the finder had no rights in the
fallen mass, but that it became the
property of the person who owned the
land upon which it fell. Thus when
it fell upin Goddard's farm it became
part of that farm, real property be-
longing to Goddard. The court view
ed it as much a part of the farm as
the stones that might be upon it.
They insisted it was not lost matter
with no owner to which any finder
might lay claim.
In deciding the case the Judge said:
'Thrugh the action of the elements,
wind and water, the soil of one man
is taken and deposited in the field of
another; and thus all over the coun-
try, we Ray say, changes are constant
ly going on. By these natural causes
the owners of the soil are giving and
taking as the wisdom of the controlling
forces shall determine. By these
operations one may be affected with a
substantial gain, and another by a
similar loss. These gains are of ac-
erection, and the deposit becomes the
which it is made
Thus we notice the rule of law that
changes made by natural forces must
be allowed to stand. If a river
washes away a portion of persons
land, that soil cannot be pursued and
brought back. An owner may keep
it at home, but once gone his title has
vanished If by the action of the
waters, or the winds, or any other
natural forces additions are made to
the body of. a persons land the addi-
lions become part and parcel of the
land and the porperty of the owner of
that land. These additions are what
the law terms accretionS.
John Deerfield owned tract of land
through which ran Buck Creek. He
sold to Alison Arms a farm of about
sixty acres, one boundary being Buck
Creek Buck Creek gradually shifted
it's course year by year, depositing
soil against Arms land. In the course
of few years several acres had thus
been added. Deerfeld claimed that
this property had not been transfer
red to Arms but that he still owned
it and could use or transfer it. He
commended this the more strongly as
he still owned the property on the
other side of the stream upon which
the stream had encroached thus leav-
ing additional land upon the other
side. He insisted that the property
lines should remain as they were
when he granted the land and that
the soil left by the stream when shift
ing across property belonging to him.
The court refused to adopt his view and
ruled that the added soil which had
come to Arms gradually year by year,
was his, and that Deerfield could not
follow what had been lost to him by
the forces of nature.
John Halsey and Warren McCor-
mick owned farms on opposite sides
of Mad River the stream forming the
boundary between them. One spring
day when the water was running at
flood tide the river broke through
onto some low land on Halsey's prop
erty cutting its way across a neck of
land and eventually establishing a
new channel within Halsey's boun-
daries leaving several acres on the
other side of the stream. McCor
mick claimed that as the river was
the boundary between their properties
he now held title to the new channel,
just as though the stream had shifted
gradually cutting away ground IrOID
the inside of the bend on Halsey's
land and depositing the soil on the
outside of the bend on his land. The
between the men were
taken to court and it was ruled that
the boundaries of the farms remain
ed those of the original channel, the
sudden change not affecting the title
of either party. They had formerly
held to the thread of the old stream
and now their boundary was the line
that had marked the thread of the
old channel.
Thus distinction is drawn between
gradual and sudden changes. Sudden
shifting of streams does not work