The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1890-10-11
0VERHANGING FRUIT TREES.

twenty-five cents worth of apples
, which fell from a tree which stood near
the dividing line between two proper
ties has resulted in a law suit which
will doubtless cost each of the litigants
hundred times more than the fruit in
dispute was worth. This case calls up
a question concerning which there is
the utmost confusion in the public
mind. Most people are under the
impression that when trees stand near
boundary line while the man on
whose ground the tree stands owns the
tree, he is entitled only to that portion
of the fruit which falls on his own
premises. while his neighbor is entitled
to all that hangs over on his side or
which may fall on his grounds. Es.
peclally is this view held by those on
whose land the tree does not stand.
We will endeavor to throw some light
on this vexed question, which IN cities,
where properties are small and fruit
trees almost constantly overnang the
adjoining premises, often gives rise to
much i'll feeling and often to direct
quarrels. A tree which stands right On
dividing line IS owned Lv both the
Proprletors OF the two properties, no
matter whether three-fonrths of the tree
is on one side and only one fourth on
the other. In such case neither of the
two can cut down or injlre the tree
being responsible to the other,
Inc roots OF the tree extend over both
draw their nourishment
rom each, thus forming joint owner
ship. When tree stands directly on
he division line, and is regarded as a
Inc tree, then both parties are the
owners OF the fruit, and each is entitled
o one-half, without rendering an ac-
.Ouul " lllS OlneI.
But when tree stands near boun.
larry line, but wholly on one side of it.
different condition of things prevails.
he courts of New York, Connecticut
nd Vermont have held that in such
ase the tree is the exclusive property
the man on whose land it stands.
ven though some of the roots NAV ex-
md to the adjoining property and
erive support and nourishment from
|, and that the owner IS the exclusive
Vner of all the fruit the tree bears, no
after whether any of it hangs over the
oundary line or not. All the fruit that
ops on the other side is the property
the man on whose land the tree
ands and the neighbor has no right
prevent the owner from crossing the
lie to pick up the fruit. If he at
mpts to prevent it by force, he can
held in suit for assault and battery,
the decisions in Massachusetts and
rmont, a man has an implied license
enter the lot of his neighbor to pick
the fruit which has fallen from tree
ndlng on the formers premises,
'vlded that he does no harm 10 the
ers premises. OF course, If vese-
les or grain were planted under the
this might make difference. but
ess such was the case, and mis- pro.
ty was in no wise injured by going
t to secure his own fruit, the neigh
cannot hold him in damages. AT
same time the neighbor has a reme-
in cutting offthe projecting branches
he tree. That is his right, but if he
lects to avail himself Oft, he cannot
ny other way prevent the man on
'se grounds the tree stands from
aiming possession OF his fruit. What
r ones legal rights in such cases.
,hborly courtesy suggests the giving
portion of the fruit which hangs
on the nelghbor's property. This
.nerally sufficient to prevent trouble
lch cases, but at the same time
is no legal obligation or right IN
ed IN the ma.ter.-Lancastey (Pa.)
D Era.