Case Name: AMANDA H. DODD v. THE CONSOLIDATED TRACTION COMPANY
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1895-02
Citations: 57 N.J.L. 482
Docket Number: 
Parties: AMANDA H. DODD v. THE CONSOLIDATED TRACTION COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 57
Pages: 482–483

Head Matter:
AMANDA H. DODD v. THE CONSOLIDATED TRACTION COMPANY.
A traction company authorized hv the city to erect its trolleys has the right to lop the branches of trees overhanging the street, when such act is reasonably necessary for the passage of its wires.
In tort. On demurrer to plea. Certified case.
This action was' brought to recover damages for the alleged destruction by the defendant of certain shade trees of the plaintiff, while constructing its trolley road.
The plea demurred to sets out its chartered rights and various statutes, under which it claims the right to build its road, and then avers “ and in the stringing of the said wires (did) necessarily and unavoidably a little trim and cut off some of the branches of the said trees of the said plaintiff which thén did overhang the street called Ocean avenue, doing no unnecessary damage to the said trees, as it lawfully might do,” &c.
The question, therefore, simply is, whether the defendant was vested with sovereign powers and immunities, and exempted from liability to damages for injuries done to individuals and their property in the exercise of those-powers.
Argued at November Term, 1894, before Beasley, Chief Justice, and Justices Depue and Van Syckel.
For the plaintiff, William C. Spencer.
For the defendant, James B. Vredenburgh.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Beasley, Chief Justice.
The defendant is entitled to judgment on this demurrer.
The boughs of the trees that were trimmed overhung the street, and were subject to removal by the municipal authori ties whenever the public exigency or convenience required it. The city had conferred on the defendant the right to extend its wires, in the usual mode, along the streets; and such authority involved, by implication, the competency to do whatever was reasonably necessary to effect the end in view. Whatever the city could have done to carry into effect the project in question, the defendant could do.
On this demurrer the defendant is entitled to judgment.