Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/605

569 NOTES 569 which has a quasi-monopoly in news may be compelled to furnish its product to consumers including commimities which have no newspapers belonging to such association, at reasonable rates.^" The constitutional guaranty of freedom of the press would protect news against too close pub- lic control. Mr. Justice Brandeis fears that the courts are not equipped to deal with the problem in all its aspects. But, although public services are often best regulated by administrative bodies, the courts have not for that reason denied the relief at their disposal pending the inauguration of such bodies.2^ Trespass by Airplane. — The rapid approach of the airplane as an instrumentality of commerce presents the occasion for defining more precisely the doctrine of the ownership of the air space, as embodied in Coke's maxim, cujus est solum, ejus usque ad caelum.^ Examining first the cases which involve interferences with the column of air by encroach- ments from adjoining lands, we find that not only is the subjacent land- owner permitted to cut away as nuisances overhanging shrubbery and projecting cornices,^ but in some states he may resort to an action in ejectment.^ That the encroaching landowner is liable also for all foreseeable damage is settled;'* but whether there is a cause of action New York & Chicago Grain & Stock Exchange v. Board of Trade, 127 111. 153, 19 N. E. 855 (1889); News Publishing Co. v. Associated Press, 114 111. App. 241 (1904); News Publishing Co. v. Associated Press, 190 III. App. 77 (1914). See also Friedman v. Telegraph Co., 32 Hun (N. Y.) 4 (1884); Smith v. Telegraph Co., 42 Hun (N. Y.) 454 (1886). See contra, State v. Associated Press, 159 Mo. 410, 60 S. W. 91 (1901); Mat- thews V. Associated Press, 136 N. Y. :i3^, 32 N. E. 981 (1893); Metropolitan Grain & Stock Exchange v. Board of Trade, 15 Fed. 847 (1883). Co., 136 Ga. 872, 72 S. E. 403 (1911). 21 AUnutt V. Inglis, 12 East, 527 (1810); Shepard v. Gold & Stock Telegraph Co., 38 Hun (N. Y.) 338 (1885); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. State, 165 Ind. 492, 76 N. E. 100 (1905). ' Coke on Litt., § 4 a. Lemmon v. Webb, [1895] A. C. i; Smith v. Giddy, [1904] 2 K. B. 448; Wandsworth Board of Works v. United Telephone Co., 13 Q. B. D. 904, 927 (1884); Codman v. Evans, 7 Allen (Mass.), 431 (1863); Aiken v. Benedict, 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 400, 402 (1863); McCourt V. Eckstein, 22 Wis. 153, 158 (1867); Meyer v. Metzler, 51 Cal. 142 (1875); Lawrence v. Hough, 35 N. J. Eq. 371 (1882); Grandona v. Lovdal, 70 Cal. 161, II Pac. 623 (1886); Lyle v. Little, 83 Hun (N. Y.), 532, ss N. Y. Supp. 8 (1895); Tanner v. WaUbrunn, 77 Mo. App. 262, 265 (1898); Norwalk Heating & Lighting Co. V. Vernam, 75 Conn. 662, 664, 55 Atl. 168 (1903); Harndon v. Stultz, 124 Iowa, 440, 100 N. W. 329 (1904); Huber v. Stark, 124 Wis. 359, 102 N. W. 12 (1905); Hazle v. Turner, 2 Sess. (Scotland) 886 (1840); see also Crocker v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co., 61 App. Div. 226, 70 N. Y. Supp. 492 (1901) (swinging shutters). ^ Murphy v. Bolger, 60 Vt. 723, 15 Atl. 365 (1888); McCourt v. Eckstein, 22 Wis. 153 (1867); Beck V. Ashland Cigar & Tobacco Co., 146 Wis. 324, 130 N. W. 464 (1911); Butler V. Frontier Telephone Co., 186 N. Y. 486, 79 N. E. 716 (1906) (telephone wires not touching any part of the land). Cf. Rasch v. Noth, 99 Wis. 285, 74 N. W. 820 (1898); Huber v. Stark, 124 Wis. 359, 362, 102 N. W. 12 (1905). Contra, Wilmarth v. Woodcock, 58 Mich. 482, 486, 25 N. W.47S (1885); Norwalk Heating & Lighting Co. V. Vernam, 75 Conn. 662, 664, 55 Atl. 168 (1903). See 16 Yale L.J. 275. (depreciation in the value of the land); Smith v. Giddy, [1904] 2 K. B. 448; Langfeldt v. McGrath, 33 111. App. 158 (1889); Barnes v. Berendes, 139 Cal. 32, 72 Pac. 406
 * " Inter-Ocean Publishing Co. v. Associated Press, supra; Moore v. Southern Railway
 * Penruddock's Case, 5 Coke Rep. 100 (1598); Baten's Case, 9 Coke Rep. 53 (161 1);
 * Pickering v. Rudd, 4 Camp. 219, 221 (1815); Fay v. Prentice, i C. B. 828 (1845)