Quick Summary
In an unusual property dispute, Goddard (plaintiff) and Winchell (defendant) clashed over a 66 lb meteorite that landed on Goddard’s property. It was uprooted and sold to Winchell by Hoagland, who claimed it as “Title by Occupancy“.
The court had to decide if the deeply embedded meteorite belonged to Goddard or was a movable and claimable object.
Applying the “Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit” principle, the court ruled that the meteorite became part of Goddard’s land upon landing, thereby dismissing Winchell’s argument and affirming ownership rights to the plaintiff.
Rule of Law
The legal rule “Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit” which translates to “Whatever is attached to the land becomes part of the land“, signifies that anything attached to it, whether by nature or human intervention, is considered part of the land itself.
Facts of the Case
A meteorite weighing 66 lbs descended onto Goddard’s (plaintiff) property, burying itself three feet deep. The following day, a local, Peter Hoagland, uprooted the meteorite in the presence of the land tenant, claimed his own, and sold the meteorite to Winchell (defendant). Winchell was fully aware that the meteorite originated from Goddard’s property, yet still made the purchase.
Despite Elickson’s privilege as a tenant, he was not authorized to extract the meteorite as the land owner was Goddard (plaintiff). Goddard filed a replevin claim against Winchell, claiming rightful ownership over the meteorite as it was found on his land. The district court ruled in favor of Goddard, affirming his legal ownership of the land and the meteorite. Winchell opposed this ruling, leading to an appeal.
Issue
Whether a meteorite, upon impact, becomes the property of the landowner, or is it still considered a movable object?
Holding and Conclusion
Yes.
Yes, the court ruled that a meteorite, upon impact, becomes part of the land it lands on, making it the property of the landowner.
This means that the landowner has rights over meteorites that land on their property, and any attempts to remove the meteorite without their permission are unauthorized. The court rejected the “Title by Occupancy” argument, stating that a meteorite is not considered a movable object but is part of the land due to its significant embedding.
Reasoning and Analysis
The court focused on the meteorite becoming akin to the natural part of the land, much like a stone. Consequently, it was deemed the property of the landowner; therefore, the decision dismissed Hoagland’s discovery claim as irrelevant.
This case highlights the significance of property laws, reinforcing that regardless of its rarity or origin if a meteorite lands on private property, it unequivocally becomes the property of the landowner.
Relevant FAQs of this case
How does the law distinguish between movable objects and those that become part of the land?
The law distinguishes based on the principle of attachment. If an object is physically attached or affixed to the land, it is considered part of the land.
- For example: A building permanently attached to the ground, like a house, is part of the land. On the other hand, objects that are not physically attached and can be easily moved, like furniture or a bicycle, are considered movable property.
Are there any limitations on a tenant's authority to remove objects from the land they are leasing?
Yes, there are limitations on a tenant’s authority. Generally, tenants are allowed to remove their own property or items they brought onto the land. However, they cannot remove fixtures or objects that have become part of the land, as these belong to the landowner.
How does this case impact the broader understanding of property rights in relation to natural objects found on private land?
This case reinforces the principle that natural objects, like meteorites, found on private land typically become the property of the landowner upon impact. It strengthens property rights in favor of landowners in such scenarios.
- For example: If someone discovers a valuable mineral deposit on their land, they are likely to have legal ownership of it, promoting the protection of property rights for landowners in similar situations.
Was this case brief helpful?