BOUNDARY, CORNER OR WITNESS TREES 253 



of not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars or imprison- 

 ment for not over one hundred days for the offense of cut- 

 ting a boundary witness tree or any tree blazed to mark the 

 line of a government survey. 



166. Trees in Streets and Highways. In some 

 cities the fee to the land within the streets is in the public 

 but generally the public has only an easement for the use of 

 the land comprised within the limits of a street or highway 

 and the abutting land owners own the fee to the highway. 

 If there are different landowners on opposite sides of the 

 highway or street each one owns to the middle of the same. 

 Where the fee to the street or highway is in the abutting 

 owner he is entitled to full control and enjoyment of the 

 land except as the land* is burdened with the easement in 

 favor of the public. He owns the trees within the street or 

 highway, l may remove them at his pleasure 2 and is liable 

 for injuries resulting from their existence. 3 



If the municipality owns the fee to the street or highway 

 it owns the trees therein. 4 Even where the municipality 

 does not own the fee in the streets or highways it often 

 under its charter has a right of control over trees along the 

 streets 5 and such control is not abridged by the exercise of a 

 license on the part of abutting owners in the planting of 

 trees or by permission granted to a telephone, telegraph, 

 electric light, or street car company to use. the streets for 

 specific purposes. 6 An abutting owner can not be com- 



1. Conn. Woodruff v. Neal, 28 Conn. 165. 



Ga. Atlanta v. Holiday, 96 Ga. 546, 23 8. E. 509. 



Iowa Overman v. May, 35 Iowa 89; Deaton v. Polk County, 9 Iowa 594. 



Mass. Denniston v. Clark, 125 Mass. 216. 



Mich. Compare Miller v. Detroit etc. R. Co. 125 Mich. 171, 84 Am. St. Rep. 569. 



N. H. Baker v. Shepard. 24 N. H. 208. 



N. J. Avis v. Vineland, 56 N. J. L. 474, 28 Atl. 1039, 23 L. R. A. 685. 



N. Y. Jackson v. Hathaway, 15 Johns 447, 8 Am. Dec. 263; Lancaster v. Rich- 

 ardson, 4 Lans. 136; Ellison v. Allen, 30 N. Y. Suppl. 441. 



Ohio Daily v. State, 51 Ohio St. 348, 37 N. E. 710, 46 Am. St. Rep. 578. 24 

 L. R. A. 724; Phifer v. Cox, 21 Ohio St. 248, 8 Am. Rep. 58. 



R. I. Tucker v. Eldred, 6 R. I. 404. 



S. D. Compare, Lovejoy v. Campbell (S. Dak. 1902), 92 N. W. Rep. 24. 



U. S. Barclay v. Howell, 6 Peters 498, 8 L. Ed. 477. See 25 Cent. Dig. Tit. 

 Highways, Sec. 292. 



2. Lancaster v. Richardson, 4 Lans. (N. Y.) 136. 



3. Weller v. McCormick, 52 N. J. L. 470, 19 Atl. 1101, 8 L. R. A. 798. 



4. Mt. Carmel v. Shaw, 155 111. 37, 39 N. E. 584, 46 Am. St. Rep. 311, 27 L. R. A. 



580; Baker v. Normal, 81 111. 108. 



5. Consolidated Traction Co. v. East Orange Tp., 61 N. J. L. 202, 38 Atl. 803. 



6. Baker v. Normal, 81 111. 108; But see, Lancaster v. Richardson, 4 Lans. (N. Y.) 



136. (Holding owner of fee may cut trees without permission of authorities). 



