254 TREES ON BOUNDARY OR IN HIGHWAY 



pelled to care for trees planted by the municipality, unless a 

 statute or a city regulation imposes this duty upon him; 1 

 and although the municipality may prohibit injuries to 

 trees in its streets or highways and regulate the planting, 

 protection and removal of trees, it cannot usually compel an 

 abutting owner to cut a tree down. 2 



The right of the abutting owner to maintain trees or 

 shrubs along a street or highway is limited by the rights 

 of the public in general and other persons in particular to 

 use the street or highway for all purposes comprised within 

 the easement for a right of way. 3 Whether the fee to the 

 street is held by the municipality or by the abutting land- 

 owner, the town or city may remove either branches of 

 trees or the trees themselves when reasonably necessary to 

 make room for sidewalks, a widening of the streets or for 

 other public purposes. 4 These removals may ordinarily 

 be made without hearing or notice to the abutting owner 5 

 but in some jurisdictions a private party cannot remove 

 even obstructing branches without a permit from the proper 

 officials, 6 and under some statutes giving a municipal cor- 

 poration the right to remove trees from streets when public 

 necessity demands, due notice is necessary prior to removal 

 by the authorities. 7 



When it becomes necessary in the construction, repair or 

 use of a street or highway, to cut down trees or remove their 

 branches, the severed trees or branches may be removed to 

 some place convenient to the owner of the land on which the 

 trees stood, but in the absence of statutory authority 

 neither a private person nor the public through its officials 

 has any right to appropriate them for use in the repair of 



1. Weller v. McCormick, 47 N. J. L. 397, 1 At!. 516, 54 Am. Rep. 175. 



2. Sproul v. Stockton, 73 N. J. L. 158, 62 Atl. 275. 



3. Pinkerton v. Randolph, 200 Mass. 24, 85 N. E. 892. 



4. Atlanta v. Holliday, 96 Ga. 546, 23 S. E. 509; Mt. Carmel v. Shaw, 155 111. 37, 



39 N. E. 584, 46 Am. St. Rep. 311, 27 L. R. A. 580 (Reversing 52 111. App. 429); 

 Hildrup v. Windfall, 29 Ind. App. 592, 64 N. E. 942; Everett v. Council Bluffs, 

 46 Iowa 66; Wilson v. Simmons, 89 Me. 242, 36 Atl. 380; Avis v. Vineland, 56 

 N. J. L. 474, 28 Atl. 1039, 23 L. R. A. 685; Ellison v. Allen, 30 N. Y. Suppl. 

 441; Chase v. Oshkosh. 81 Wis. 313, 51 N. W. 560, 29 Am. St. Rep. 898, 15 L. 

 R. A. 553. 



5. Chase v. Oshkosh, 81 Wis. 313, 51 N. W. 560, 29 Am. St. Rep. 898, 15 L. R. A. 553. 



6. State v. Pratt, 90 Minn. 66, 95 N. W. 589. 



7. Stretch v. Cassopolis, 125 Mich. 167, 84 N. W. 51, 84 Am. St. Rep. 567, 51 L. 



R. A. 345; Clark v. Dasso, 34 Mich. 86; See. Bliss v. Ball. 99 Mass. 598. 



