ACCESSION. Coming into possession of a right or office ; increase ; augmentation ; addition.
The right to all which one's own property produces, whether, that property be movable or immovable, and the right to that which is united to it by accessary, either naturally or artificially. 2 Kent 360; 2 Bla. Com. 404.
If a man hath raised a building upon his own ground with the material of another, or If a man shall have built with his own ma terials upon the ground of another, in either case the edifice becomes the property of him to whom the ground belongs ; for every building is an accession to the ground upon which it stands; and the owner of the ground, if liable at all, is only liable to the owner> of the materials for the value of them ; Inst. 2. 1. 29, 30 ; 2 Kent 362. And the same rule holds where trees, vines, vegetables, or fruits are planted or sown in the ground of another; Inst. 2. 1. 31, 32.
The building of a rail fence on another's land vests the rails in the owner of the land; Wentz v. Pincher, 34 N. C. 297, 55 Am. Dec. 416. And see Merritt v. Johnson, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 473, 5 Am. Dec. 289 ; Pulcifer v." Page, 32 Me. 404, 54 Am. Dec. 582.
If the materials of one person are united by labor to the materials of another, so as to form a single article, the property in the joint product is, in the absence of any agree ment, in the owner of the principal part of the materials by accession ; Merritt v. John son, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 473, 5 Am. Dec. 289; Stevens v. Briggs, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 177; Glo ver v. Austin, 6 id. 209 ; Pulcifer v. Page, 32 Me. 404, 54 Am. Dec. 582, and note (where the whole subject is treated); Beers v. St. John, 16 Conn. 322 ; Inst. 2. 1. 26; Eaton v. Lynde, 15 Mass. 242 ; Wetherbee v. Green, 22 Mich. 311, 7 Am. Rep. 653; Ryder v. Hathaway, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 305 ; Stephens v. Santee, 49 N. Y. 35; Mack v. Snell, 140 N. Y. 193, 35 N. E. 493, 37 Am. St. Rep. 534. But a ves sel built of materials belonging to different Persons, it has been said, will belong to the owner of the keel, according to the rule, pro pietas totius navis carinw causarn sequitur; 2 Kent 361; Glover v. Austin, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 209 ; Merritt v. Johnson, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 473, 5 Am. Dec. 289 ; Johnson v. Hunt, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 139 ; but see Coursin's Ap peal, 79 Pa. 220. It is said to be the doc trine of the civil law, that the rule is the same though the adjunction of materials may have been dishonestly contrived; for, in determining the right of property in such a case, regard is had only to the things join ed, and 'not to the persons, as where the ma terials are changed in species ; Wood, Inst.
93 ; Inst. 2. 1. 25. And "see ADJUNCTION.
The tree belongs to the owner of the land on which the root is, and its fruit is to the owner of the tree ; 1 Ld. Raym. 737; al though limbs overhang a neighbor's land; Hoffman v. Armstrong, 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 337. The original title to ice is in the possessor of the water where it is formed; State v. Pottmeyer, 33 Ind. 402, 5 Am. Rep. 224 ; Hig gins v. Kusterer, 41 Mich. 318, 2 N. W. 13, 32 AUL. Rep. 160 ; but the sale of ice in the water is a sale of personalty; id.
Where, by agreement, an article is manu factured for another, the property in the article, while making and when finished, vests in him who furnished the whole or the principal part of the materials ; and the maker, if he did not furnish the same, has simply a lieu upon the article for his pay ; Jones v. Gardner, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 268; Eaton v. Lynde, 15 Mass. 242 ; Worth v. Northam, 26 N. C. 102; Foster v. Warner, 49 Mich. 641, 14 N. W. 673 ; Eaton v. Mun roe, 52 Me. 63.
The increase of an animal, as a general thing, belongs to the owner of the 'dam or mother ; Arkansas Valley Land and Cattle Co. v. Mann, 130 U. S. '69, 9 Sup. Ct. 458, 32 L. Ed. 854; Stewart v. Ball's Adm'r, 33 Mo 154; Hanson v. Millett, 55 Me. 184; Hazel baker v. Goodfellow, 64 Ill. 238; but, if it be let to another, the person who thus be comes the temporary proprietor will be entitled to its increase ; Putnam v. Wyley, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 435, 5 Am. Dec. 346; Inst. 2. 1. 38; Hanson v. Millett, 55 Me. 184; Stewart v. Ball's Adm'r, 33 Mo. 154; Kellogg v. Lovely, 46 Mich. 131, 8 N. W. 699, 41 Am. Rep. 151; though it has been held that this would not be the consequence of simply put ting a mare to pasture, in consideration of her services; Hea.rtley v. Beaum, 2 Pa. 166. The increase of a' female animal held under a bailment or executory contract belongs to the bailor or vendor until the agreed price is paid; Allen v. Delano, 55 Me. 113, 92 Am. Dec. 573; Elmore v. Fitzpatrick, 56 Ala. 400. See note as to title to increase of animals ; 17 L. R. A. 81. The Civil Code of Louisiana, following the Roman law, made a distinc tion in respect of the .issue of slaves, which, though born during the temporary use or hiring of their mothers, belonged not to the hirer, but to the permanent owner ; Inst. 2. 1. 37; and see Jordan v. Thomas, 31 Miss. 557; Seay v. Bacon, 4 Sneed (Tenn.) 99, 67 Am. Dec. 601; 2 Kent 361; Fowler v. Mer rill, 11 How. (U. S.) 396, 13 L. Ed. 736. But the issue of slaves born during a tenancy for life belonged to the tenant for life; Bohn v. Headley, 7 Harr. & J. (Md.) 257.