RIGHTS OF ADJOINING LANDOWNERS 249 



terest in the adjoining land. Under the modern doctrine 

 an adjoining owner may cult off all branches and roots up 

 to the line, especially if the owner of the tree has refused 

 to do so when requested; 1 but he will be liable in trespass if 

 he cut ever so little beyoncj the line 2 and in either trespass 

 or trover if he convert to his own use either the branches or 

 the fruit which overhang his land. 3 The owner of the land 

 on which the trunk stands may probably cut off the branches 

 or gather the fruit which overhangs the adjoining land pro- 

 vided in so doing he does not enter upon the adjoining land, 4 

 and the adjoining land owner will be liable for assault if he 

 attempt by violence to prevent the owner of the tree from 

 cutting the branches or gathering the fruit in the manner in- 

 dicated. 5 Thus it would appear that fruit which should 

 ripen on overhanging branches and faU upon the adjoining 

 land, or branches which should be detached by a storm, 

 would remain the property of the owner of the tree whose 

 entrance upon the adjoining land for recovery of the same 

 might be excusable provided no actual damage was done 

 the adjoining landowner in the effecting of such recovery. ' 



It has been held that the adjoining landowner has no 

 right to cut down a tree or injure its trunk even though the 

 tree cause him personal inconvenience, discomfort or in- 

 jury, 7 but relief may be had in the courts if the tree can be 

 affirmatively shown to constitute a nuisance. 8 Such action 

 might result either in damages or an abatement of the nuis- 

 ance. 



If the branches or roots which intrude over or into the 



1. Grandona v. Lovdal, 78 Cal. 611, 21 Pac. 366, 12 Am. St. Rep. 121; Grandona v* 



Lovdal, 70 Cal. 161, 11 Pac. 623; Robinson v. Clapp, 65 Conn. 365, 32 Atl. 

 939, 29 L. R. A. 582, 67 Conn. 538, 35 Atl. 504, 52 Am. St. Rep. 298; Lyman 

 v. Hale, 11 Conn. 177, 27 Am. Dec. 728; Bright v. New Orleans R. Co., 114 

 La. 679, 38 So. 494; Hickey v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 96 Mich. 498, 55 N.W. 

 989, 35 Am. St. Rep. 621, 21 L. R. A. 729; Buckingham v. Elliott, 62 Miss. 

 296, 52 Am. Rep. 188; Countryman v. Lighthill, 24 Hun. (N. Y.) 405; Eng. 

 Crowhurst v. Burial Board, 4 Ex. D. 5; Lonsdale v. Nelson, 2 B. C. 302; Lem- 

 mpn v. Webb, (1895) 3 Ch. Div. 1, 59 J. P. 564, 64 L. J. Ch. 205, 71 L. T. Rep. 

 N. S. 647, 11 Reports 116. 



2. Newberry v. Bunda, 137 Mich. 69, 100 N. W. 277. 



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



Y. 201, 8 Am. Rep. 537. 



4. Hoffman v. Armstrong, 48 N. Y. 201, 8 Am. Rep. 537. 



5. Hoffman v. Armstrong, 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 337, (Aff'd in 48 N. Y. 201. 8 Am. Rep. 



537). 



6. Mitten v. Fandrye, Popham 161. 



7. Grandona v. Lovdal, 70 Cal. 161, 11 Pac. 623; Bliss v. Ball, 99 Mass. 597.. 



8. Grandona v. Lovdal, 78 Cal. 611, 21 Pac. 366, 12 Am. St. Rep. 121; Granrfona 



v. Lovdal, 70 Cal. 161, 11 Pac. 623. 



