Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 13.pdf/329

 296

A tree belongs to the owner of the land on bor's ground and draws thence nourishment, which it grows; however, a tenant owns the and if it temptingly stretches forth its bushes in his garden. You ask what is a branches laden with luscious fruit over the tree, and what's a bush or shrub? dividing fence, still the people next door The courts have given an answer. A have no right to pick the fruit. (Lyman v. tree is a woody plant, whose branches spring Hale, ii Conn. 177; Skinner v. Wilder, 38 from, and are supported upon a trunk, or Vt. 105; 25 N. Y. 126.) Even if the apples body; while a shrub is a low, small plant drop from your tree on to the road the whose branches grow directly from the earth passers-by have no right to appropriate them without any supporting trunk or stem; un against your wishes. If you can pick the dergrowth are plants growing under or be fruit of your tree hanging over your neigh low greater plants; because trees are young, bor's fence without trespassing, you have a of varying heights and thicknesses, they are right to do so, and if neighbor Smith, Jones not "shrubs, undergrowth nor bushes. A or Robinson interferes to stop you by force "tree," without words of qualification, you can bring him up before the authorities means a standing tree. You do not commit for assault and battery. In one case a lady larceny at Common Law, no matter how was standing on a fence picking cherries many trees you unlawfully carry off; nor can which hung over into her neighbor's land, you bring an action for slander against any the neighbor ordered her to stop, but know one who accuses you of stealing a tree. Be ing her rights she persisted, and a scuffle cause a tree is part of the realty. (Clay v. ensued, in which her arm received some Postal Tel. Co. 70, Miss. 411; Idol v''. Jones, bruises; and for this the ungallant man had 2 Dev. [N. Car.] 162.) to pay her $1,000. If some fruit falls into If a tree grows near the boundary line the next yard while you are picking it, ap between you and your neighbor, and its parently you may go and pick it up (if you roots extend into his soil and its branches are mean enough to do so), of course, doing reach over into his yard, the property in the no avoidable damage. (Hoffman v. Arm tree belongs to you as the owner of the land strong, 48 N. Y. 376; 12 Vt. 273; 113 Mass. on which it was first sown or planted. A 376; Anthony v. Haney, 8 Bing. 192.) The courts hold that the maxim Citjus man cannot limit the distance to which his est solum, ejus est usque ad coehim, has its tree will send its roots. (Berriman v. Pea cock, 9 Bing. 384; Holder v. Coatts, i Moo. full effect without extending it to anything & M. 112; Hoffman zr. Armstrong, 48 N. Y. disconnected with or detached from the soil, 201; Lyman r. Hale, 11 Conn. 177.) If a like fruit on overhanging boughs. Hale tree grows directly on the line, partly on his picked six bushels of pears off the branches land and partly on yours, then you and he that hung over his land some eight feet up own it and its fruit in common, and you must in the air; the tree was four feet from the behave in a neighborly way about it; if one line. For twenty-five years Lyman had -cuts it down or misuses it he will have to picked the fruit from those branches: the settle with the other in damages; or if the Court decided that Hale was not a joint owner because two roots had come into wrong-doer is seen in time he can be re his land, and that he was liable in trespass strained by an injunction, and this though for taking the fruit. In Skinner's case the he is only doing as he has already been done trouble was over an apple tree and with the by. (Dubois v. Bear, 25 N. Y. 123; 12 N. H. 45; 34 Barb. 543; Quillen?-. Betts, 39 Atl. like result. A most absurd case was where the Court Rep- S9S-) of Chancen', in England, was appealed to to If a tree, standing wholly in your garden, compel a man to give back a cherry stone. chooses to stretch its roots into your neigh