INJURIES BY PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION 259 



In a Nebraska case it was held that even where the cir- 

 cumstances were such as to entitle an abutting landowner to 

 recover damages at law, injunction against the one threaten- 

 ing the trimming of trees growing in the street would not be 

 granted unless there were a showing of special conditions 

 which made the remedy at law inadequate. l 



The cutting of trees by public utility corporations is em- 

 braced within the statutes making it an indictable offense 

 for any one to cut down or injure fruit, shade or ornamental 

 trees owned by another, 2 and oak and hickory trees growing 

 along a highway have been held to be shade trees within the 

 purview of such a statute. 3 



168. Trees Subject to Eminent Domain. Trees 

 are subject to condemnation proceedings, 4 except that 

 gardens and orchards are in some jurisdictions exempt from 

 condemnation. Not only will the value of the trees within 

 the right of way of a railroad be considered in condemnation 

 proceedings, but compensation has been allowed for injury 

 to trees growing outside the right of way, 5 and telegraph, 

 telephone, electric light, electric railroad and other power 

 companies may be required to compensate the owner of 

 trees for their removal or injury whether they have grown 

 naturally or have been planted within a highway or on 

 either inclosed or uninclosed adjoining land. 6 In such 

 cases, where thet trees are not primarily timber trees with a 

 commercial value, the measure of damages will be the differ- 

 ence between the value of the property as a whole before and 

 after the trees were cut or injured; and the value of the trees 

 as thus determined may be greatly in excess of whatever 

 sale value they may have had after severance. 7 Where 



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



2. Southern Bell Tel. Co. v. Allen, 109 Ala. 224, 19 So. 1, (Under Sec. 7833, Ala. 



Code). 



3. Russellville Home Tel. Co. v. Commonwealth, 109 S. W. 340, 33 Ky. L. Rep. 132 



But see St. Joseph Etc. R. Co. v. Dryden, 11 Kan. 186; Western Union Tel. 

 Co. v. Rich 19 Kan. 517, 27 Am. Rep. 159 (Tel. Co. serving railroad may cut 

 trees standing within right of way, if necessary). 



4. Preston v. Dubuque etc. R. Co., 11 Iowa 15; Hayden v. Skillings, 78 Me. 413, 



6 Atl. 830. 



5. Haislip v. Wilmington etc. R. Co., 102 N. C. 376, 8 S. E. 926; Griffin v. Pennsyl- 



vania and Schuykill Valley R. Co., 2 Del. Co. (Pa.) 425. 



6. McAntire v. Joplin Tel. Co., 75 Mo. App. 535; Marshall v.* American Tel. etc. 



Co., 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 615; Cf. Gilmore v. Pittsburgh etc. R. Co., 104 Pa. St. 

 275; Lafferty v. Schuykill River East Side R. Co., 124 Pa. St. 297. 16 

 Atl. 869, 10 Am. St. Rep. 587, 3 L. R. A. 124. 



7. Marshall v. Amer. Tel. etc. Co., 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 615. 



