The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1885-10-31
NEAR NBIaHBoRs AND THEIR TREES
lancaster [ Pal Ne,o Fra.

LUHcuUeF Iu.J 4teW FTu.
great deal of mistaken opinion prevails, even
among those who should be better posted, as to
the rights of the several parties where fruit trees
are growing on or near the dividing lines of their
property. If you breach the subject to the first
half dozen individuals you meet, the chances are
that they will be about equally divided in their
views on this subject. In cities, where the grounds
attached to dwellings are for the most part of
crcumscribed limits and where the most is made
Of it in the way of planting fruit trees the SUBJ
,e becomes one of no little interest as well as of
importance. Trees, if not planted very close to
the dividing line, still so near that when they
grow to any considerable size some branches are
almost sure to extend beyond the owners grounds,
and over those of his neighbor. The real owner
ship Of the fruit which grows on, or drops from,
such limbs is frequently matter of grave dispute
and not seldom the cause of downright quarrels
both parties claiming it.
The law on this subject of line and over-hang-
ing trees has been pretty well defined by the high
est legal authority in q number of states. When
tree stands on line it does not matter whether
the greater part stands on one side or not both
parties own the tree and its product, and neither
party can cut it down without being responsible
in damages to the other. The roots of the tree
rive nourishment from the lands of each conse-
quently the equal ownership is clearly establish
ed. If blown down, no matter how it falls, each
proprietor is entitled to his share of the tree.
If it be a fruit tree that stands on the division
line or is line tree, the two parties owners
of the fruit in common, and each of them is emit
tied to one-half the fruit it may bear. If one of
the owners takes more than half of it, he can be
held responsible in damages by the other.
| When, however, fruit trees stand near dividing
| lines, but not on them, and the branches over
hang q neighbours land, the circumstances are
| greatly changed. It has been held by the courts
in the States of New York, Connecticut and Yer
mont, that if trees stand wholly ON the land Of
one man. no matter if the roots extend to the soil
Of he neighbor and derive their sustenance there
fro the latter is not entitled to any of the fruit
that may grow on the overhanging branches, and
should he attempt by force to keep the owner of
the tree from picking it up, he be held for an
assault and battery. Although no cases of this
kind, we believe, have come before the courts OF
This State it is reasonable to infer from the decs
| ions in the states already named that the owner
If the tree has an implied license to pick it up,
provided he does no damage to his .neighbor's
| property by so doing
Should the neighbours lot or field or garden be
planted in grain or vegetables which would be
likely to be injured if the owner attempted to
gather his fruit, different set of circumstances
would arise, but the general opinion is that if all
reasonable precautions were taken and no damage
to the premises arise, cause for action could be
established. A man has the undoubted right to
secure his own property, even when on the prem
Uses of another, if he causes the latter damage
In such cases, however, the neighbor could avoid
trouble by exercising his undoubted right to cut
off the branches of the tree that overhang, but ne
| glecting to do that he cannot prevent his neigh.
Boz from securing what belongs to him. In most
cases of this kind the owner generally gives the
neighbor part of the fruit matter of courtesy
and in this way trouble is avoided. That seems
to be the most sensible, well the least trou-
blesome, way of settling such matters and avoid
| ing disputes