Land Law 261x Land Law 261x Land Law 261x
Fixtures and Chattels
Edwards v. Sims (1929)
The Great Onyx Cave of Kentucky
- The onyx cave was a tourist attraction.
- The cave went under the neighbour’s property.
- Court in Kentucky decided that a portion of the cave belonged to Sims on the basis that ‘you
won your land from the heaven to the founds below’ therefore, they were allowed to an
injunction for permission to inspect.
- Dissenting judgement from Judge Logan who believed that the cave should only belong to the
person who has access to it
‘He owns everything beneath the surface that he can subject to his profit or pleasure, but he
owns nothing more. Therefore, let it be written that a man who owns land does, in truth and in
fact, own everything from zenith to nadir, but only for the use that he can make of it for his
profit or pleasure. He owns nothing which he cannot subject to his dominion.’
- Judgement:
1. A cave or cavern should belong absolutely to him who owns its entrance, and this
ownership should extend even to its utmost reaches if he has explored and connected these
reaches with the entrance. When the surface owner has discovered a cave and prepared it for
purposes of exhibition, no one ought to be allowed to disturb him in his dominion over that
which he has conquered and subjected to his uses.
2. When the wonders were unfolded and the ways were made safe, then Edwards patiently,
and again through the years, commenced the advertisement of his cave. First came one to see,
then another, then two together, then small groups, then small crowds, then large crowds, and
then the multitude. Edwards had seen his faith justified. The cave was his because he had
made it what it was, and without what he had done it was nothing of value. The value is
not in the black vacuum that the uninitiated call a cave. That which Edwards owns is
something intangible and indefinable. It is his vision translated into a reality.
3. Then came the horse leach's daughters crying: "Give me," "give me." Then came the
"surface men" crying, "I think this cave may run under my lands." They do not know they
only "guess," but they seek to discover the secrets of Edwards so that they may harass him
and take from him that which he has made his own. They have come to a court of equity and
have asked that Edwards be forced to open his doors and his ways to them so that they may
go in and despoil him; that they may lay his secrets bare so that others may follow their
example and dig into the wonders which Edwards has made his own. What may be the result
if they stop his ways? They destroy the cave, because those who visit it are they who give it
value, and none will visit it when the ways are barred so that it may not be exhibited as a
whole.
Boundary disputes:
- Fairly common disputes
- Rarely well defined
- Hedge and Ditch rule – to establish a boundary. But actually the ditch outside the hedge is the
boundary marker but one would think it is the hedge.
Alan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley
Lord Hoffman: Boundary disputes are a particularly painful form of litigation. Feelings run high and
disproportionate amounts of money are spent. Claims to small and valueless pieces of land are pressed
Fixtures and Chattels
Edwards v. Sims (1929)
The Great Onyx Cave of Kentucky
- The onyx cave was a tourist attraction.
- The cave went under the neighbour’s property.
- Court in Kentucky decided that a portion of the cave belonged to Sims on the basis that ‘you
won your land from the heaven to the founds below’ therefore, they were allowed to an
injunction for permission to inspect.
- Dissenting judgement from Judge Logan who believed that the cave should only belong to the
person who has access to it
‘He owns everything beneath the surface that he can subject to his profit or pleasure, but he
owns nothing more. Therefore, let it be written that a man who owns land does, in truth and in
fact, own everything from zenith to nadir, but only for the use that he can make of it for his
profit or pleasure. He owns nothing which he cannot subject to his dominion.’
- Judgement:
1. A cave or cavern should belong absolutely to him who owns its entrance, and this
ownership should extend even to its utmost reaches if he has explored and connected these
reaches with the entrance. When the surface owner has discovered a cave and prepared it for
purposes of exhibition, no one ought to be allowed to disturb him in his dominion over that
which he has conquered and subjected to his uses.
2. When the wonders were unfolded and the ways were made safe, then Edwards patiently,
and again through the years, commenced the advertisement of his cave. First came one to see,
then another, then two together, then small groups, then small crowds, then large crowds, and
then the multitude. Edwards had seen his faith justified. The cave was his because he had
made it what it was, and without what he had done it was nothing of value. The value is
not in the black vacuum that the uninitiated call a cave. That which Edwards owns is
something intangible and indefinable. It is his vision translated into a reality.
3. Then came the horse leach's daughters crying: "Give me," "give me." Then came the
"surface men" crying, "I think this cave may run under my lands." They do not know they
only "guess," but they seek to discover the secrets of Edwards so that they may harass him
and take from him that which he has made his own. They have come to a court of equity and
have asked that Edwards be forced to open his doors and his ways to them so that they may
go in and despoil him; that they may lay his secrets bare so that others may follow their
example and dig into the wonders which Edwards has made his own. What may be the result
if they stop his ways? They destroy the cave, because those who visit it are they who give it
value, and none will visit it when the ways are barred so that it may not be exhibited as a
whole.
Boundary disputes:
- Fairly common disputes
- Rarely well defined
- Hedge and Ditch rule – to establish a boundary. But actually the ditch outside the hedge is the
boundary marker but one would think it is the hedge.
Alan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley
Lord Hoffman: Boundary disputes are a particularly painful form of litigation. Feelings run high and
disproportionate amounts of money are spent. Claims to small and valueless pieces of land are pressed
