260 TREES ON BOUNDARY OR IN HIGHWAY 



a hedge or young trees are capable of removal, the cost of 

 removal may be assessed in condemnation proceedings. l 

 In determining the decrease in the value of property caused 

 by a change in the grade of a street or highway, any destruc- 

 tion of, or injury to, shade trees should be considered; 2 

 but an Oregon case held that in estimating the damage to 

 timber on a railroad right of way, the timber cut by the rail- 

 road company from lands outside the right of way limits 

 should not be included. 3 Where timber land was taken 

 for forestry purposes under a New York statute, 4 it was 

 held that the one who held a contract with the owner of the 

 land for the timber upon it was entitled under condemnation 

 proceedings to the value of the timber on the stump with 

 interest on such value from the time of the appropriation 

 until the award was perfected. 5 There have been many 

 decisions under state laws or city ordinances which encour- 

 age or regulate the planting and care of trees in streets or 

 highways. 6 



1. Shawnee County Com'rs v. Beckwith, 10 Kan. 603. 



2. See Cook v. Ansonia, 66 Conn. 413, 34 Atl. 183; Holley v. Torrington. 63 Conn. 



426, 28 Atl. 613; Shelton Co. v. Birmingham, 61 Conn. 518, 24 Atl. 978; See 

 Telephone and Tel. Co. c. Forke, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. Sec. 368; Seattle etc. 

 R. Co. v. Scheike, 3 Wash. 625, 29 Pac. 217, 30 Pac. 503. 



3. Oregon etc. R. Co. v. Barlow, 3 Ore. 311. 



4. Chap. 220, Laws of 1897. 



5. Turner v. State, 67 N. Y. App. Div. 393, 73 N. Y. Suppl. 372. 



6. Jefferson County v. Hudson, 20 Kan. 71; Sharon v. Smith, 180 Mass. 539, 62 



N. E. 981; Chase v. Lowell, 149 Mass. 85, 21 N. E. 233; Cora. v. Wilder, 127 

 Mass. 1; White v. Godfrey, 97 Mass. 472; Smith v. Nobles County, 37 

 Minn. 535; Bigelow v. Whitcomb, 72 N. H. 473. 57 Atl. 680. 65 L. R. A. 

 676. 



