Thomas Haslem v. William A. Lockwood,[1] Connecticut, (1871) is an important United States case in property, tort, conversion, trover and nuisance law.

The plaintiff directed his servants to rake abandoned horse manure into heaps that had accumulated in a public street, intending to carry it away the next day.

At trial it was proved that the plaintiff employed two men to gather into heaps, on the evening of April 6, 1869, some manure that lay scattered on the ground along the side of a public highway.

While the heaps consisted largely of manure, there were also traces of soil, gravel and straw which are commonly seen along roadways.

On the above facts, the plaintiff prayed the court to rule that the manure was the personal property of the owners of the horses, and had been abandoned.

The defendant claimed that the manure being dropped and spread out over the surface of the earth was a part of the real estate, and belonged to the owner of the fee, subject to a public easement; that the fee was either the borough of Stamford or the town of Stamford, or in the parties who owned lands adjacent; that therefore the scraping up of the manure, mixed with the soil, if real estate, did not change its nature to that of personal estate, unless it was removed, whether the plaintiff had consent of the owner of the fee or not; and that unless the heaps become personal property, the plaintiff could not maintain his action.

Curtis and Hoyt (Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant) offered the following arguments in their brief: (1) The manure in question was the personal property abandoned by its owners.

[14] (5) The plaintiff therefore acquired not only a valid possession, but a title by occupancy, and by having expanded labor and money upon the property.

[28] (5) If the manure was always personal estate, it being spread upon the surface of the earth, it was in possession of the owner of the fee, who was not the plaintiff.

The principle of those cases is, that manure made in the usual course of husbandry upon a farm is so attached to and connected with the realty that, in the absence of any express stipulation to the contrary, it becomes appurtenant to it.

It found its origin in the fact that it is essential to the successful cultivation of a farm that the manure, produced from the droppings of cattle and swine fed upon the products of the farm from the land should be used to supply the drain made upon the soil in the production of crops, which otherwise would become impoverished and barren; and in the fact the manure so produced is generally regarded by farmers in this country as a part of the realty and has been so treated by landlords and tenants from time immemorial.

The finding in this case is, "that the removal of the manure and scrapings was calculated to improve the appearance and health of the borough."

The manure originally belonged to the travelers whose animals dropped it, but in being worthless to them was immediately abandoned; and whether it then became the property of the borough of Stamford which owned the fee of the land on which the manure lay, is unnecessary to determine; for if it did, the case finds that the removal of the filth would be an improvement to the borough, and no objection was made by any one to the use of that the plaintiff attempted to make of it.

Considering the character of such accumulations upon highways, in cities and villages, and the light in which they are everywhere regarded in closely settled communities, we cannot believe at the borough in this instance would have had any objection to the act of the plaintiff in removing a nuisance that affected the public health and the appearance of the streets.

At all events, we think facts of the case show a sufficient right in the plaintiff to the mediate possession of the property as against a mere wrong doer.

The plaintiff had the peaceable and quiet possession of the property; and we deem this sufficient until the borough of Stamford shall make complaint.

If he leaves the property at the place where it was discovered, and does nothing whatsoever to enhance its value or change its nature, has right by occupancy is unquestionably gone.

But the question is, if a party finds property comparatively worthless, as the plaintiff found the property in question, owing to its scattered condition upon the highway, and greatly increases it value by his labor and expense, does he lose his right if he leaves it a reasonable time to procure the means to take it away, when the means are necessary for its removal?

The statute regulating the rights of parties in the gathering of sea-weed, gives the party who heaps it upon a public beach twenty-four hours in which to remove it, and that length of time for the removal of the property we think would not be unreasonable in most cases like the present one.We therefore advise the Court of Common Pleas to grant a new trial.

The idea that horse droppings abandoned along the road became a part of the real estate in fee is an interesting argument.

When the plaintiff-appellate began to rake the manure into neat piles for reclamation, he did it in clear sight of one or more of the officials of Stamford.

The existing laws allowing persons who piled up seaweed to have a legitimate claim of possession for 24 hours was invoked.