River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1913-10-23
POPULAR TALKS ON LAW
What Nature Adds 10 the Land.
BY Walter K. Towers, A. o., j. D., Of the
Michigan Bar.

Michigan Bar.
John Goddard was the owner of
an 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
Iowa. Peter Hoagland lived on
farm adjoining the Goddard pro-
perty and it CHANGED that a mem
Der Of his family watched the mete-
or and saw it plunge to earth on
the adjoining property. Being told
of this and directed to the spot
where il seemed to fall Hoagland
went onto the Goddard farm the
next day and discovered the mete-
orite buried in the ground to depth
of three feet. dickson, the tenant,
was present, but offered no objec-
tions, and Hoagland dug up the
visitor from the heavens and trans
ported it to his house, claiming it
for his own-prob ably believing in
the doctrine Of finders keepers"
Three days latter as opportunity
offered Hoagland sold the meteorite
to FL. v. Winchell, then Professor
of Geology at the University of
Wisconsin. When John Goddard
heard of this he Immediately felt
that as the aerolite had fal len on
his property it had become his and
that Hoagland had no rights there
in He decided to enforce his
rights against Professor Winchell.
Winchel having purchased 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.
The court which tried the case
ruled hat 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
Goddard's farm it became part of
the 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
it was not lost matter with no own
er to which any finder might lay
claim.
In deciding the case the judge
said
Through the action of the
elements, wind and water, the soil
of one man is taken and deposited
in the fields of another; and thus
all over the country, we might say,
changes are constantly 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 opera
tons one may be affected with a
substantial gain, and another by a
similar loss. These gains are of
accretion, and the deposit 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 for
ces must be allowed to stand. If a
river washes away a portion of a
PERSONS land, that soil cannot be
pursued and brought back An own.
er may keep it at home. but once
gone his title has vanished. If by
one action of the waters, or winds,
or any other natural forces add
tions are made to the body of q
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 accretion.
John Deerheld owned a tract .
land through which ran Bucl
Creek. He sold to Alison Arms
farm of about sixty acres, one
boundary being Buck Greek. Bucl
Creek gradually shifted its course
year by year, depositing sol
against Arms land. In the course o
a few years several acres had thu.
been added. Deerheld claimed
that this property had not beer