The owner of the surface of land is prima facie the owner of the soil or may, however, be removed from their natural position in or on the ground, and, when thus severed from the land by one authorized to make the severance, they become personalty, even though they still remain on or below the surface of the land,16 provided, it seems, their removal from their natural position is with a view to their ultimate removal from the land.17 mineral deposits to the center of the earth,11 and any underground encroachment by an adjoining owner is a trespass or nuisance.12 Land may, however, be divided horizontally for purposes of ownership, the surface belonging to one person, and a stratum below the surface to another, this frequently occurring in the case of a conveyance of the minerals separate from the surface.13

475 (semble); Norwalk Heating & Lighting Co. v. Vernam, 75 Conn. 662, 96 Am. St. Rep. 24G, 55 Atl. 168 (semble).

7. Puerto v. Chieppa, 78 Con. 401, 62 Atl. 664; Hannibalson v. Sessions, 116 Iowa, 457, 93 Am. St. Rep. 250, 90 N. W. 93 (extending arm); Smith v. Smith, 110 Mass. 302; Esty v. Baker, 48 Me. 495 (semble). See Pollock, Torts (9th Ed.) at p. 358, approving a dictum of Lord Blackburn in Ken-yon v. Hart, 6 B. & S. 249, that to cause an object to pass above another's land involves a trespass. Contra, Salmond, Torts (3d Ed.) p. 171; Pickering v. Rudd, 4 Camp. 219.

8. Butler v. Frontier Tel. Co., 186 N. Y. 486, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 920, 116 Am. St. Rep. 563, 79 N. E. 716; Murphy v. Bolger, 60 Vt.

723, 1 L. R. A. 309, 15 Atl. 365; McCourt v. Eckstein, 22 Wis. 153. Compare Rasch v. Noth, 39 Wis. 285, 40 L. R. A. 577, 67 Am. St. Rep. 858, 74 N. W. 820. See the discussion of the matter in 19 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 369.

9. See Pearson v. Matheson,

102 S. C. 377, 86 S. E. 1063; which case is the subject of an instructive editorial note in 29 Harv. Law Rev at p. 525.

10. See 4 Amer. Journ. Internat. Law at pp. 97, 126, arR. P.-55.

II. Earth and Minerals.