CHAPTER XVI 

 TREES ON BOUNDARY LINE OR IN HIGHWAY 



164. Rights of Adjoining Landowners Regarding 

 Trees On or Near Division Line. In an early English 

 case 1 it was held that if A planted a tree upon the extreme 

 limit of his land and the tree in its growth extended its roots 

 into the adjoining land of B, A and B became tenants in 

 common of the tree; but that if all the roots grew in A's land, 

 the branches even though they overhung the land of B would 

 follow the roots and the property of the whole tree would be 

 in A. Of course the difficulty of determining whether all 

 of the roots were confined to the land owned by the one on 

 whose land the trunk of the tree stood was so great as to 

 render this doctrine scarcely capable of application. Another 

 English case held that the branches would follow the trunk 

 and the property in them would accordingly be in the one 

 who owned the land on which the tree stood. 2 The modern 

 doctrine in both England and America is that all property 

 right in the tree, its branches and its fruit, is in him upon 

 whose land it stands even though it be known that the roots 

 extend into the land held by another. 3 In a Michigan case 

 it was said that if A with the cooperation of the adjoining 

 owner, who was A's grantor, established a division fence 

 and planted trees along his side A might be estopped from 

 cutting such trees without the consent of the grantor but 

 that this estoppel would not operate in favor of a successor 

 to A's grantor. 4 That is to say, there was no covenant 

 which would bind A when his grantor disposed of his in- 



1. Waterman v. Soper, 1 Ld. Kaym. 737. , 



2. Masters v. Pollie, 2 Bolle 141. 



3. Lyman v. Hale, 11 Conn. 177, 27 Am. Dec. 728, Hoffman v. Armstrong, 48 N. 



Y. 201, 8 Am. Dec. 537 (Aff'm. 46 Barb. 337) ; Dubois v. Beaver, 25 N. Y. 123, 

 82 Am. Dec. 326, (Aff'm. Relyea v. Beaver, 34 Barb. 547), Skinner v. Wilder, 

 38 Vt. 115, 88 Am. Dec. 645; Holder v. Coates, M. & M. 112, 22 E. C. L. 264; 

 Millen v. Fandrye, Popham 161; Morrice v. Baker, 3 Bulst. 198; See 1 Wash- 

 burn Real Prop., Sec. 7; 20 Vin. Abr. 417, 1 Chitty Gen'l. Prac. 652. 



4. Reed v. Drake, 29 Mich. 222. 



248 



