TREE. A woody plant, the branches of which spring from, and are supported upon, a trunk or body. It may be young or old, small or great. Clay v. Tel. Co., 70 Miss. 411, 11 South. 658.
Trees are part of the real estate while growing and before they are severed from the freehold ; but as soon as they are cut down they are personal property. Some trees are timber trees, while others do not bear that denomination. See TIMBER.
Trees belong, to the owner of the land where they grow. When the roots grow into the adjoining land, the owner of such land may lawfully claim a right to hold the tree in common with the owner of the land where it was planted ; but if the branches only overshadow the adjoining land, and the roots do not enter it, the tree wbolly belongs to the owner of the estate where the roots grow ; 1 Ld. Raym. 737. See Rehoboth & Seekonk v. Hunt, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 224 ; Put ney v. Day, 6 N. H. 430, 25 Am. Dec. 470. When the tree grows directly on the bound ary-line, so that the line passes through it, it is the property of both owners, whether it be marked as a boundary or not ; Musch v. Burkhart, 83 Ia. 301, 48 N. W. 1025, 12 L. R. A. 484, 32 Am. St. Rep. 305 ; Relyea v. Beav er, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 547 ; Skinner v. Wilder, 38 Vt.' 115, 88 Am. Dec. 645. As to sales of standing timber, see TIMBER; SALE.
The owner of trees in a highway is held, in Hazlehurst v. Mayes, 84 Miss. 7, 36 South. 33, 64 L. R. A. 805, to have no right of action for the necessary trimming of them for the in stallation of an electric-lighting system for the municipality ; contra, Moore v. Light Co., 163 N. C. 300, 79 S. E. 596 ; Norman M. & G. Co. v. Bethurem (Okl.) 139 Pac. 830. An abutting owner has an equitable interest in a tree grown by him on the street, the fee of which is in the city, and may sue for an in jury thereto ; id.; he has a property in shade
trees on the sidewalk, subject to the city's right ; Moore v. Light Co., 163 N. C. 300, 79 S. E. 596.
A street commissioner may remove trees standing within the limits of a street, if rea sonably necessary to the proper construction of the sidewalk which the city council has directed him to build; Wilson v. Simmons, 89 Me. 242, 36 Atl. 380.
Where the branches of a tree growing up on the land of one person overhang that of his neighbor, one may, without notice, cut off so much of a tree as overhangs his land, if he can do so without going upon the land of the owner, and such owner cannot acquire; either by prescription or the statute of limi tations, the right to overhang his neighbor's land ; [1895] App. Cas. 1, affirming [1894] 3 Ch. 1; and where a tree stands on the divid ing line between adjoining lots, either owner may cut off branches or roots extending over his own land ; Robinson v. Clapp, 65 Conn. 365, 32 Atl. 939, 29 L. R. A. 582, distinguish ing Lyman v. Hale, 11 Conn. 177, 27 Am. Dec. 728 ; but it has been held that an injunction will lie to restrain an adjoining owner of a rural lot from destroying a tree growing on the division line; Comfort v. Everhardt, 35 W. N. C. Pa. 364. The owner of land on which a partially decayed tree is permitted to stand in such position that by falling it would damage the house of another, is liable for damages caused by its falling after he has been notified that it was dangerous ; Gib son v. Denton, 4 App. Div. 198, 38 N. Y. Supp. 554.