Cuius est solum , eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferosmeans " whoever owns the soil , it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell . “ This prop correct rationale asserts that a person who owns a picky piece of land owns everything now above and below that piece of land , no matter the distance , and can pursue intruder who transgress their border on the surface , underground and in the sky . But has that obligate up in tourist court over the years ?
Despite the Latin phrasing , the principle was not a part of classical Romanist law , and is usually attributed to the thirteenth - 100 Italian scholar Accursius . It made its way to England and was first used in the English - speaking world by Sir Edward Coke , an Elizabethan - earned run average lawyer / justice / politician . It make wider popularity inCommentaries on the Laws of England(1766 ) , a treatise by judge and jurist William Blackstone .
Commentarieswas extremely regarded as a leading body of work on the development of English law and was influential in the development of the American effectual system . It was saidthat " no other playscript except the Bible has played so keen a role" in shaping American institutions , and many of Blackstone ’s approximation , includingCuius est solum … were apace assume and repeated by American court and sound scholars .
Beginning with the 1797 decision inState v. David(Mr . David was indict in Delaware for stealing two barrels of Clupea harangus after the drum were notice buried on his country ) and continuing for the next hundred years , the American legal system maintain that landholder ' rights broaden over a tract of space that unfold from the centre of the earth out into the ambience . Sometimes this space is described as a uncoiled column with dimensions that match the property ’s aerofoil - level boundary lines . The editorial sometimes start at a theoretical point at the very center of the earth , proceed through the surface of the globe and up into the sky . Other times , it was trace as being shaped like an reverse pyramid . The tip is at the shopping centre of the earth and the space let out to come across the property ’s surface boundary lines .
The 150 Most Important Dead Chickens in Legal History
The philosophical system worked well enough in the U.S. for a trivial more than a one C , but in 1903 the Wright crony shook things up when they bewilder their powered Wright Flyer I airborne . From there , atmosphere travel expanded promptly and by the recent 1930s , commercial-grade air hose were carrying mail and passengers across the rural area .
Those magnificent men in their flying machines , of row , were outrage countless borders as they crisscrossed the U.S. , and the property proprietor began to sue the trespassing airline companies . Having to get license from , or pay a settlement out to , anyone whose house they wanted to fly over would have stimulate major concern for the airlines , the courts and Union regulator , and the doctrine began to fall out of favor .
The courts turn over on their beloved Blackstone ’s idea and began to on a regular basis freeze off thead coelumapproach to airspace rights . Instead , they interpreted the axiom as giving property owners rights to the sky “ within the range of actual business , ” and role of airspace “ to such an extent as [ they are ] able-bodied . ” Congress , meanwhile , passed the Air Commerce Act in 1926 , and gave the government jurisdiction over “ navigable air space , ” or the sky above “ minimum safe altitudes of trajectory ” as determined by the Union government .
In 1946 , the United States Supreme Court heardUnited States v. Causby . Their decision in the vitrine proved to be the last nail in thead coelumdoctrine ’s casket and established Modern unwashed constabulary to replace the generally - accepted - but - made - up rule .
Causby own 2.8 acres of farmland near Greensboro , North Carolina . During World War II , the U.S. government started using a nearby drome for military aircraft and fighter plane begin flying over Causby ’s property at altitude low enough to blow the leave off the top of the inning of Causby ’s trees . The noise from the flypast scared Causby ’s chickens so much that they would panic , ply into walls and kill themselves . Some 150 wimp give out like this in a little span of sentence and Causby was forced to give up chicken farming wholly . He sued the government , claiming that their trespassing left his property commercially worthless and that his land had , in effect , been taken from him .
The Supreme Court ruled the gentle wind was a " public highway" and pass up Causby ’s claim that his airspace had been taken from him . Justice William O. Douglas wrote , in his ruling for the majority , that thecuius Eastern Standard Time solum , eius est usque advertizing coelum et advertizing inferosdoctrine and the idea that " possession of the Edwin Herbert Land extended to the fringe of the world … has no place in the modern world . To recognize such private claim to the airspace would clog these highways , gravely step in with their control and evolution in the public interest , and channelise into individual ownership that to which only the populace has a just claim . “
Douglas did , however , grant that " if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land , he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere . " He concluded that " flight so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate preventative with the enjoyment and use of the land " did constitute a taking of the land and left it to the lower motor hotel to see out how Causby should be rewarded .
What Lies Beneath
While thead coelumpart of the doctrine fizzled pretty quickly with the birth of air travel , thead inferospart soldier on in some slip , if only because subsurface property right are still being figure out . Without an underground tantamount toCausby , the courts have yet to establish legal philosophy that address subsurface rights and the legislating that some state have adopted is vague enough that some courts will still uphold thead inferosdoctrine , while others regard it as gimcrack .
A look at decisions in subsurface ownership disputes bring out that the courts run to side with the surface property owner if the case involves the near subsurface ( disputes about Sir Herbert Beerbohm Tree roots or other intrusions within 100 feet or so of the open ) , and hundreds of them have citedad inferosin their conclusion . eccentric involving disputes a few hundred feet below the surface , though , are generally less likely to go in the landowner ’s favor or bring up thead inferosdoctrine .
Complicating matter are the number of federal , land , and local statues regarding particular employment of subsurface domain . In many case , if oil , instinctive throttle , difficult careen minerals , object embed in the soil or waste matter disposal are involved , these statute commonly supersede traditional property rights .
