TREES IN STREETS AND HIGHWAYS 255 



the road or for other purposes; l and even where statute 

 authorizes the use of trees growing within the highway for 

 repair of the same, as is common in American states, trees 

 which have been cut by the abutting owner and prepared 

 for his own use cannot be thus appropriated. L> 



Where the abutting owner holds the e to the street or 

 highway he can maintain an action in trespass for any un- 

 justifiable injury to trees within the highway, 3 and this 

 rule has been applied to a highway commissioner removing 

 a tree as an obstruction, without previous notice to the 

 owner. 4 Under statutes the abutting owner may often 

 maintain the action even when he does not hold the fee in 

 the highway, 5 and in some jurisdictions even where the 

 statute does not give the right if he has planted and often 

 tained the trees with the sanction of the municipal authori- 

 ties. c In a New York case in which the abutting owner 

 did not own the fee it was held that he nevertheless had an 

 action for injury to shade trees caused by the escape of gas 

 from the pipes which were maintained in the streets by a 

 corporation, 7 and in a Pennsylvania case an action in 

 trover was sustained for the cutting of trees in a highway. 8 



1. Reynolds v. Spews, I Stew. (Ala.) IM : Deaton v. I'olk County, 9 Iowa 594: Bos- 



ton v. Richardson, U Allen (Mass.) 1 1(1; Baker v. Shephurd, 24 X. H. 208; 

 Makepeace v. Worden, 1 X. 11. Hi; Ward v. Folly. 5 X. .). L. 4S5: Niagara 

 Falls Suspension Bridge Co. v. Baehman, 4 Lans. (X. V.) 52:5, (reversed on 

 other grounds in 00 X. V. L'(il); Tucker v. Kldrcd, ti K. 1.404; Matthews 

 Lumber Co. v. Van Xandl County (Tex. Civ. App. 190:ii 77 S. \V. 900. Kni/. 

 Turner v. Ringwood Highway Board, L. K., K<|. 4 IS, 21 L. T. Rep. >,'. S. 745, 

 18 Wkly. Rep. 424; See 25 Cent. Dig. Tit. "Highways," See. 2!;(. 



2. Goodman v. Bradley, 2 Wis. 257. 



X. Western l'n. Tel. Co. v. Krueger, :{() Ind. App. 2S, 01 X. K. o:{5: Bet/, v. Kansas 

 City Home Tel. Co., 121 Mo. App. 47:i, !>7 S. \\ . 207: Kellar v. Central Tel. 

 etc. Co., :i:i Misc. 52:5, 105 X. Y. Suppl. <>:{; lluling v. Henderson. Itil I'a. St. 

 55;j, 2!) Atl. 270: Andrews v. Youmans, 7S Wis. 50. 47 X \\'. :i04 : O'Connor v. 

 X'ova Scotia Tel. Co. 22 Can. Sup. C1 . 27ti. (Reversing 2.'! Nova Scotia 509): 

 IJaunatyne v. Suburban Rapid Transit Co., 15 Manitoba 7: L'Hussier v. 

 Brosseau, 20 Quebec. Super. Ct. 170. 



4. Clark v. Dasso, !U Mich. SC>; Douglas v. Fox. :i 1 1. C. C. P. 140. 



5. Langley v. Augusta, US (ia. 5'.)0, 15 S. K. ISO, 9S Am. St. Rep. i:i:5: Rockford 



Gas Light etc. Co. v. Ernst, OS 111. App. .'{()(); Kemp v. DCS Moines, 125 Iowa 

 040, 101 N. W. 474; ()sl)orne v. Auburn Tel. Co., Ill N. \'. App. Div. 702, 97 

 N". Y. Suppl. S74 (Revs'd on other grounds in 1S9 X. Y. :59:{, S2 X. !<:. 42S) ; 

 Kdsall v. Howell, S(> Hun. (N. Y.) 424, :5:? X. Y. Suppl. S92: Cf. Sanderson v. 

 Haverstick, S I'a. St. 294; Lovejoy v. Campbell. l(i S. 1). 2:il, 92 X. W. 24; 

 Douglas v. Fox, ;51 I'. C. C. P. 140 (Canada); Cf. 1'nwin v. Hanson (1S91), 2 

 Q. B. 115 (England). 



6. Lane v. Lamko, 53 N. Y. App. Div. :595, (15 X. Y. Suppl. 1090. 



7. Donahue v. Keystone Gas Co., LSI N. Y. :m, 7:i N. K. 110S, 100 Am. St. Rep. 



649, <)0 L. R. A. 701 (Alf'g 90 N. Y. App. Div. , 4 5SO, 85 N. Y. Suppl. 478). 



8. Sanderson v. Haverstick, 8 Pa. St. 294. 



