INJURIES BY PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATIONS 257 



parties performing similar public functions have no legal 

 right to enter, without the consent of the owner, upon pri- 

 vate property for the purpose of cutting the trunks or 

 branches of trees which interfere with the erection, main- 

 tenance or operation of such public utilities; * and such 

 action will ordinarily give rise to an action in trespass even 

 though the only cutting which is done is the trimming off 

 of branches which overhang a street or highway. Damages 

 will also be allowed to the abutting landowner for any un- 

 necessary or wanton injury to trees which stand within a 

 street or highway; 2 even where such owner does not hold 

 the fee to the land upon which the tree stands, and especially 

 if he has planted the trees with the acquiescence of the 

 city. 3 



The court holdings are in direct conflict as to the lia- 

 bility for damages where the amount of cutting or trimming 

 was no greater than was reasonably necessary for .the con- 

 struction, maintenance and operation of the telephone line 

 or other public utility, some decisions allowing damages 4 



1. 111. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Satterfleld, 34 111. App. 386, 2 Am. Electric 



Cases 296. 



La. Tissot v. Great Southern Tel. etc. Co., 39 La. Ann. 996, 3 So. 261, 4 Am. 

 St. Rep. 248. 



Miss. Clay v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 70 Miss. 406. 11 So. 658; 



N. Y. Van. Siclen v. Jamaica Electric Light Co., 45 N. Y. App. Div. 1, 61 N. 

 Y. Suppl. 210 (Aff'd in 168 N. Y. 650,' 61 N. E. 1135). 



Tenn. Cumberland Tel. etc. Co. v. Shaw, 102 Tenn. 313, 52 S. W. 163; Cumber- 

 land Tel. etc. Co. v. Poston, 94 Tenn. 696, 30 S. W. 1040; Memphis 

 Bell Tel. Co. v. Hunt, 16 Lea 456, 1 S. W. 159, 57 Am. Rep. 237. 



Tex. Southwestern Tel. etc. Co. v. Branham (Civ. App. of Tex. 1903), 74 

 S. W. 949. 



Can. Gilchrist v. Dominion Tel. Co., 19 N. Brunsw. 553; Roy. v. Great North- 

 western Tel. Co., 2 Quebec Super. Ct. 135. 



2. See Southern Bell Tel. Co. v. Francis, 109 Ala. 224, 19 So. 1, 55 Am. St. Rep. 



930, 131 L. R. A. 193; Tissot v. Great Southern Tel. etc. Co., 39 La. 

 Ann. 996, 3 So. 261, 4 Am. St. Rep. 248; See Wyant v. Central Tel. 

 Co., 123 Mich. 51, 81 N. W. 928, 81 Am. St. Rep. 155, 47 L. R. A. 

 497; Bronson v. Albion Tel. Co., 67 Neb. Ill, 93 N. W. 201, 60 L. R. A. 

 426; Van Siclen v. Jamaica Electric Light Co., 45 N. Y. App. Div. 1, 

 61 N. Y. Suppl. 210 (Aff'd in 168 N. Y. 650, 61 N. E. 1135); Memphis 

 Bell Tel. Co. v. Hunt, 16 Lea 456, 1 S. W. 159, 57 Am. Rep. 237; Gil- 

 Christ v. Dominion Tel. Co., 19 N. Brunsw. 553. 



3. Osborne v. Auburn Tel. Co., Ill N. Y. App. Div. 702, 97 N. Y. Suppl. 874. 



4. Conn. Bradley v. Southern New England Tel. Co., 66 Conn. 559, 34 Atl. 499. 



32 L. R. A. 280, under statutory provision. 



111. Board of Trade Tel. Co. v. Barnett, 107 111. 507, 47 Am. Rep. 453. 

 Miss. Cumberland Tel. etc. Co. v. Cassedy, 78 Miss. 666, 29 So. 762. 

 Mo. Cartwright v. Liberty Tel. Co., 205 Mo. 126, 103 S. W. 982, 12 L. R. A. 



N. S. 1125; State v. Graeme, 130 Mo. App. 138, 108 S. W. 1131; Mc- 



Antire v. Joplin Tel. Co., 75 Mo. App. 535. 



Neb. Bronson v. Albion Tel. Co., 67 Neb. Ill, 93 N. W. 201, 60 L. R. A. 426. 

 N. Y. Osborne v. Auburn Tel. Co., Ill N. Y. App. Div. 702, 97 N. Y. Suppl. 874. 

 (Footnote 4 continued on next page) 



