Essex County herald. [volume] (Guildhall, Vt.) 1873-1964, 1913-06-27


Iowa farm which he leased to James
dickson for the year of 1890. On
the second day of May in this year
an aerolite passed over north
ern Iowa. Peter Hoagland lived on
farm adjoining the Goddard prop
erty and it CHANGED that member
of his family watched the meteor
and saw it plung to earth on The adj
joining property. Being told of
this and directed to the spot where
it seemed to fall Hoagland went on
to the Goddard farm the next day
and discovered the meteorite buried
in the ground to a depth of three
feet. Elickson, the tenant, was pres
,ent, but Offered no objection, and
Hoagland dug up the visitor from
the heavens and transported it to his
house, claiming it for his own-prob-
ablysbelieving in the doctrine of
finding keepers.
Three days later as opportunity
offered Hoagland sold the meteorite
to H. "! Winchell, then Professor of
Geology atsthe University of Wiscon-
sin. When John Goddard heard of
this he Immediately felt that as the
aerolite had fallen on his property it
had becomeihis and that Hoagland
had no rights therein. He decided
to'enforcei his rights against Profess
sor Winchell. Winchell having pur-
chased from Hoagland had no 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.
Thecourt, which tried the case
ruled that the finder had no rights
in the fallen mass, but that it be-
came the property Of the person
who owned the land upon which it
fell. Thus when it fell upon God
dard g farm it became part of that
farm, real property belonging to
Goddard. The court viewed it as
much part of the farm as the
stones that might be upon it. They
insisted that it was mot lost matter
with no owner to which any finder
might lay claim.
In deciding the case the Judge
said:
Through the action of the ele-
i ments, wind and water, the soil of
/ one man is taken and deposited in
the field of another; and. thus all
over the country I'VE may say changes
are constantly going on. By these
natural causes the owners of the soil
are giving and taking as the wisdom
Eof the controlling forces shall deter
i mine. By these operations one may
be affected with a substantial gain,
and another by similar loss. These
gains are'of accretion, and the de-
post becomes the property of the
owner of the soil on which it is
made"
Thus we notice the rule of law
that changes made by natural force,
must be allowed to stand. If river
washes away q portion of a person s
! 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 additions become part and parcel
of the land and the property of the
owner of that land. These additions
are what the law terms accretions.
John Deerfield owned a tract of
land through which ran Buck Creek.
He sold to Alison Arms a farm of
of about sixty acres, one boundary
being Buck Greek, Buck Creek grad
ually shifted it's course year by year,
depositing soil against Arms land.
In the course Of a few years several
acres had thus been added. Deer
| field claimed that this property had
not been transferred to Arms but
that e,still owned it and could use
or transfer it. He .contended this
the more strongly as he still owned
the property on the other side of the
stream upon which the stream had
encroached thus, leaving additional
land upon the other side. He insist
ed that the property lines should re-
main as they were when he granted
the land and that the soil left by the
stream when shifting across properly