Talk:Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Not A Roman Legal Principle

Commentators suggest that this saying, while in Latin, is not actually a Roman legal principle:

The theory that American law recognizes ownership to the center of the earth can be traced back to 1766, when William Blackstone boldly proclaimed the doctrine in his famous treatise Commentaries on the Laws of England. It was not a principle of Roman law--despite the Latin phrasing of the maxim--nor was the theory recognized in early common law. Rather, it is best viewed as hyperbole invented by Blackstone, without any prior foundation in English law. Measured against the yardstick of common law history, it is a comparatively modern creation.

Blissfully ignorant of subsurface geology, English and American courts repeated this center of the earth dictum over the ensuing decades, often in cases where subsurface rights were not even in dispute. Authors of legal treatises and legal dictionaries similarly adopted the dictum, using it broadly to help define the meaning of “land,” or to explain the scope of property rights that were conveyed by a deed. By the end of the nineteenth century, frequent repetition had transformed Blackstone's naked assertion into a supposed rule of American law.

John G. Sprankling, Owning the Center of the Earth, 55 UCLA L. Rev. 979, 982-83 (2008) (footnotes omitted). --Captaintex (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

As I discuss below, you are correct – the principal appears to date to medieval Roman law, not to classical Roman law.

The history of the et ad inferos “to hell” part is less clear, and may be due to Blackstone, who specifies that interpretation but not the wording. I’ve written as much in the article, but refrained from stating outright that Blackstone created this broader interpretation (I’ve written that he stated it), unless we have a bit more support for that.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nbarth: Should a stronger distinction be made between the domestic law doctrine about property of persons and the international law doctrine about the extent of territorial sovereignty of states? Kaihsu (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaihsu I don't think that needs elaboration; it's already covered in

Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos § Modern history, specifically

Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos § International law.

This is a legal principle; its application to international law is, to my understanding, only since modern times. (Unless someone can dig up a premodern international dispute about air rights or subsurface rights!) —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accursius of Bologna

"The phrase was first coined by Accursius of Bologna in the 13th Century." This bit really needs a citation, because it directly contradicts a statement earlier in the article that it was Blackstone who invented the phrase. Further, there is no mention of it on Accursius's page, so I'm inclined to just delete that bit until some support can be given for it. Though there is no direct reference for Blackstone's use of the phrase, the text in which he wrote it is given, which at least gives readers a means by which to find his use of it.129.171.233.77 (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good point – this also bothered me (medieval Latin and New Latin phrases are often misattributed, often to antiquity), so I dug up some citations.

There appears to be a confusion between the narrow use of the phrase (air rights only) and the broad use of the phrase (subsurface rights as well).

The “air rights” form is attributed to Accursius, with extensive references, and there does seem to be a continuous history in English law from Accursius through Coke and Blackstone.
The “subsurface rights” part seems most likely due to Blackstone, or rather later formulations – note that Blackstone specifies subsurface rights as well (which may be original with him – it does not appear in Coke), but the maxim he quotes (proximately from Coke) only specifies air rights. I thus suspect that et ad inferos was added by later reformulations of Blackstone – possibly in the US, as one sees these broad formulations used and rephrased in the US (as in Brandeis) – though I didn’t find much discussion in the references, so I’ve not put anything to that effect in the article.

I’ve put the (extensive) references and detailed legal history in this revision; please feel free to edit or add, especially if anyone can find the source of et ad inferos.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coelum or Caelum?

A difference between the title and the main body of text.

Good catch – someone’s fixed this to be consistently oe (not ae), which I think is more standard.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under ground

The article mentioned the above part with air-crafts, but not transportations under ground. Something that I recall was greatly debated with the planning of metros in several cities. // Liftarn (talk)

The article has been updated to include a discussion of subsurface property rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.140.14 (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3D property rights in Sweden

Paulsson, Jenny (2013-07-01). "Reasons for introducing 3D property in a legal system—Illustrated by the Swedish case". Land Use Policy. 33: 195–203. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.019. ISSN 0264-8377. Kaihsu (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]