250 TREES ON BOUNDARY OR IN HIGHWAY 



adjoining land cause an actual injury, damages may be re- 

 covered from the owner of the tree, but if the branches are 

 neither poisonous nor noxious by nature, no action can be 

 brought merely because of their intrusion. x 



Felling a tree in such manner that it falls upon the land 

 of another constitutes a trespass, 2 and damages have been 

 collected from one who allowed the trimmings from a tree 

 to fall upon adjoining land to the damage of the owner 

 thereof. 3 



If the trunk of a tree is intersected by the boundary line 

 the adjoining owners have a common property in it, though 

 there is a difference of opinion as to whether they are tenants 

 in common of the whole tree, or each has an ownership of 

 that portion of the trunk which stands upon and the 

 branches which overhang his own land. 4 However, in all 

 jurisdictions an action will lie for the destruction or perma- 

 nent injury of the tree by one adjoining owner without the 

 consent of the other and treble damages have been allowed 

 for such injury. 5 Where the theory is held that each ad- 

 joining owner has a full interest in that part upon or over 

 his own land great liberty will be allowed in the cutting of 

 branches and roots on his side of the line. 6 



Injunctions have been granted to prevent one from plant- 

 ing near his line willow trees which would injure the land 



1. Grandona v. Lovdal, 70 Cal. 161, 11 Pac. 623; Buckingham v. Elliott, 62 Miss. 



296, 52 Am. Rep. 188; Hoffman v. Armstrong. 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 337; Country- 

 man v. Ldghthill, 24 Hun. (N. Y.) 405; See Bliss v. Ball, 99 Mass. 597; Tanner 

 v. Wallbrun, (1898) 77 Mo. App. 262; Crowhurst v. Burial Board, 4 Ex. D. 5, 

 and especially Ackerman v. Ellis. (1911) 81 N. J. L. 1, 79 Atl. 883; and Smith 

 v. Giddy, (1904) 2 Brit. Ruling Gas. 897, holding action maintainable for 

 actual injury though trees not harmful by nature. 



2. Newson v. Anderson. 24 N. C. 42, 37 Am. Dec. 4O6. 



3. Mitten v. Fandrye, Popham 161; Lambert v. Bessey, T. Raym. 421, 467; See 



Wilson v. Newberry, L. R., 7 Q. B. 31. But see Maryland Code Public Civil 

 Law, Bagby, 1911, Sec. 366, p. 694. Not liable, if felling neither wilfull nor 

 careless. 



4. Cal. Grandona v. Lovdal, 70 Cal. 161, 11 Pac. 623, 78 Cal. 611. 21 Pac. 366. 

 Conn. 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. 



Del. Quillen v. Betts, 1 Pennew, 53, 39 Atl. 595. 



Iowa Musch v. Burkhart, 83 Iowa 301, 48 N. W. 1025, 32 Am. St. Rep. 305, 

 12 L. R. A. 484. 



N. H. Griffln v. Bixby, 12 N. H. 454, 37 Am. Dec. 225. 



N. Y. Dubois v. Beaver, 25 N. Y. 123. 82 Am. Dec. 326, (Aff'm Relyea v. Bea- 

 ver. 34 Barb. 547) ; Hoffman v. Armstrong, 46 Barb 337 (Aff'd in 48 

 N. Y. 201. 8 Am. Rep. 537.) 



Pa. Miller v. Mutzabaugh, 3 Pa. Dist. 449; Miller v. Holland, 13 Pa. Co. Ct. 

 622. 



5. Relyea v. Beaver. 34 Barb. 547 (Aff'd in 25 N. Y. 123. 82 Am. Dec. 326. 



6. 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. . 



