Evening journal., 1919-08-14
WHO owns THE
AIR These DAYS?
Fine Crop of Litigation Ex-
pected as Use of Air
planes lncreas.s
WHAT OLD COMMON LAW
Of ENGLAND PROVIDED

NEW YORK. Aug. ii,--As fine crop
Of litigation as ever brought Wcahu
into the pockets of gentlemen learned
in the law may soon be harvested as
lhe result OF the development of the
qirplane, according TO lawyers, ayia-
tors and real estate men OF this city.
Their prophecies a>e based ON the
action Of farmers out West who have
literally put ON their property Keep
Off the grass" signs designed 10 warn
lviators from landing on their proper
ty--and something more. The 'some-
ing more is even more important in
The eyes 0f some farmers, for IL in
,ludes the claim that the aviator shall
keep at such height as not 90 in
lerfere unduly with the rural habits
Of the farmers live stock.
These cases and the recent Chicago
tragedy. when a dlrigble blew up and
its debris. crashing down from the
skies. killed ~ people I'm bank, have
raised the question, Who owns the
air?"
According 10 both lawyers and real
estate men. definite legislation win he
necessary 30 settle the question event
ually as 30 what rights airplanes viii
have, but meanwhile what is TO hap
pen 20 the airman who is prosecuted
for flying over private property?
George B. Davenport, attorney for
the New York Title and Mortgage Com
pany, discussing the legal. problem
said Yesterday;
THE old commons law Of England
held that a man owned the ground be
meath his property TO the center of the
earth and the air above his property
for an infinite distance into space
That was before the courts cOntem-
plated such an. innovation as flying
machines. Blackstone held tliata prop
erty owner was entitled to- the rights
Of lsght. air and access. ~
81 imagine that when a similar case
comes before orr courts The action Of
the airship in passing over a mans
private property VIII bo considered
more under The heading OF a common
Nuisance than a violation Of his rights
10 an infinite amount OF free space on
the top OF his house. There was a
case recently in Chicago when an air
ship, 1ying low, fell through the top
Of q bank building.
Probably the courts here will decide
that If am airship fies so low over a
mans property as to interfere with
his lisht. air or comfort, or 10 dam
age or frighten his live stock, or in any
other way prove a nuisance, II VIII
be a matter which will call for the
Issuance OF an injunction
"Of course. there is coming a time
when there will he great deal Of air
traffic. II viii be Impossible for air
ships 20 ny only over public-Owned
1roperty or over highways. Probably
he individual who, complains will have
10 prove that the airship Is doing his
property some damage. The mere-fact
that under the common law Of Eng
and. made before the advent Of the
sirship he has a theoretical rlslt to
100000 miles Of air above his house
viii hardly hold n the airman. using
, little OF this air and space does not
n any way cause any nuisance.
Charles n. Noyes. head Of we'll
known real estate firm, said that un-
doubtedly the rights Of persons and
property on the ground must be prop
,rly safeguarded. he thought II was
ikely that in individual cases many
ceal estate holders might seek out in
junction against the flyers passing over
their property, but on the whole he
expected them TO accept the progress
Of Science and not mae a fuss unless
actual damage was done. -
As a rule" no said. 1.-The only dam
age the rand lubler suffers from the
aviator Is a stin neck"
A the Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor
Corporation it was said that some live
ly legal combats were undoubtedly
due, but the opinion there cOincided
with that Of Mr.. Davenport, that,
pending definite legislation, the re-
sponsibHlty Of the flyers would be
confined by the courts to the doing Of
actual damage.
In Waterloo. Iowa" said an Of