258 TREES ON BOUNDARY OR IN HIGHWAY 



and others refusing to allow them. x In the absence of 

 statute the determination of the question whether damages 

 should be allowed in such cases should apparently depend 

 upon whether the use of the street or highway for the pur- 

 poses of the corporation was considered an ordinary use of 

 the highway or as an additional servitude not embraced 

 within the easement held by the public. 2 In some juris- 

 dictions such use is held an additional servitude 3 and in 

 others it is not so considered. 4 



If the quasi public corporation is not liable for the 

 necessary cutting of trees, it is not necessary for it 

 to give notice to the abutting owner so as to af- 

 afford him opportunity to do the trimming himself 

 unless the statute requires such notice; 5 and it has 

 been held that a telephone company which is required to 

 move its wires and poles from a street to the adjoining side- 

 walk, is not liable to an abutting owner for the trimming of 

 trees necessary to the removal. 6 Under a Canadian 

 statute authorizing a telegraph company to remove branches 

 overhanging the street which interfered with its line, it was 

 held that the company was not liable to an abutting owner 

 provided the necessary trimming was done without an en- 

 try upon his land. 7 



(Footnote 4 concluded from preceding page) 

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



24 L. R. A. 724 (injury to ornamental trees in highway under Ohio 



statute) . 

 Pa. Marshall v. American Tel. etc. Co., 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 615, under statutory 



provision. 

 Can. See O'Connor v. Nova Scotia Tel. Co., 22 Can. Sup. Ct. 276; Gilchrist 



v. Dominion Tel. Co., 19 N. Brunsw. 553; Hodgkins v. Toronto, 19 



Ont. App. 537; Compare O'Connor v. Nova Scotia Tel. Co., 23 Nova 



Scotia 509. 



1. Southern Bell Tel. Co. v. Francis, 109 Ala. 224, 19 So. 1, 55 Am. St. Rep. 930, 



31 L. R. A. 193; Wyant v. Central Tel. Co., 123 Mich. 51, 81 N. W. 928, 81 

 Am. St. Rep. 155, 47 L. R. A. 497; Southern Bell Tel. Co. v. Constantine, 61 

 Fed. 61, 9 C. C. A. 359, 4 Am. Electric Cas. 219, 23 U. S. App. 56; See also. 

 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Rich, 19 Kan. 517, 27 Am. Rep. 159, 1 Am. Elec. 

 Cas. 271 ; Dodd v. Cons. Trac. Co. 57 N. J. L. 482. 



2. 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; But see. Southern Bell Tel. Co. v. Francis, 109 Ala. 224, 19 So. 

 1, 55 Am. St. Rep. 930, 31 L. R. A. 193; and McAntire v. Joplin Tel. Co., 

 75 Mo. App. 535. 



3. See Eminent Domain, 15 Cyc. 681, 682. 



4. Ibid. 



5. Wyant v. Central Tel. Co., 123 Mich. 51, 81 N. W. 928, 81 Am. St. Rep. 155, 



47 L. R. A. 497. 



6. Southern Bell Tel. Co. v. Francis, 109 Ala. 224, 19 So. 1, 55 Am. St. Rep. 930. 



31 L. R. A. 193; Southern Bell Tel. Co. v. Constantine, 61 Fed. 61, 9 C. C. A. 359. 



7. Roy v. Great Northwestern Tel. Co., 2 Quebec Super. Ct. 135. 



