Goddard v. Winchell case
brief
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
52 N.W. 1124
CASE SYNOPSIS: Appellant buyer
challenged an order from the Winnebago District Court (Iowa), which
found that an aerolite bought by the buyer that fell on appellee
possessor's land became part of the soil on which it fell and the
possessor was the owner thereof.
FACTS: An aerolite fell out of the sky and became imbedded in the possessor's soil. One of the posessor's neighbors saw it fall, dug it up, and sold it to the buyer. The possessor initiated an action against the buyer. The lower court found that the aerolite became part of the possessor's soil on which it fell and, therefore, the possessor was the owner of the aerolite. The lower court also stated that the neighbor's act of removing the aerolite was wrongful.
ANALYSIS:
The court affirmed the lower court. The court reasoned that the aerolite was not a movable object because it was imbedded in the land and had to be dug up. Further, the court stated that it was basically a stone and despite the way it arrived, it was related to the soil. The court stated that the aerolite was the property of the owner of the fee upon which it fell.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the lower court's order, which found that an aerolite bought by the buyer that fell on the possessor's land became part of the soil on which it fell and the possessor was the owner thereof.
---
FACTS: An aerolite fell out of the sky and became imbedded in the possessor's soil. One of the posessor's neighbors saw it fall, dug it up, and sold it to the buyer. The possessor initiated an action against the buyer. The lower court found that the aerolite became part of the possessor's soil on which it fell and, therefore, the possessor was the owner of the aerolite. The lower court also stated that the neighbor's act of removing the aerolite was wrongful.
ANALYSIS:
The court affirmed the lower court. The court reasoned that the aerolite was not a movable object because it was imbedded in the land and had to be dug up. Further, the court stated that it was basically a stone and despite the way it arrived, it was related to the soil. The court stated that the aerolite was the property of the owner of the fee upon which it fell.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the lower court's order, which found that an aerolite bought by the buyer that fell on the possessor's land became part of the soil on which it fell and the possessor was the owner thereof.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment