Robinson v. Clapp | 32 Atl. 939 | Jan.

8, 1895
[To cut or not to cut]

Relation to Phil. Laws:

Art. 680 If the branches of any tree should extend over a neighboring estate, tenement, garden or yard, the
owner of the latter shall have the right to demand that they be cut off insofar as they may spread over his
property, and, if it be the roots of a neighboring tree which should penetrate into the land of another, the
latter may cut them off himself within his property.

DOCTRINE: Where the branches of a tree extend over an adjacent owners land, he may lop them off up to the
line, even though that was practically to the trunk of the tree. The same doctrine applies where any part of a trunk of
a tree stands upon the lots of adjoining land-owners and when the injury to the one who wants to cut a part of the
tree would be greater than the removal would cause to the other owner.

FACTS: William Waite was the owner of certain premises on the northerly side of Bradley Street in the city of New
Haven. A dwelling-house stood on the westerly part of the said lot. Waite then conveyed the westerly part to Clapp
by warranty deed. Thereafter, Waite quitclaimed his right, title and interest in the remaining lot to Robinson.

On the boundary line between the premises of Clapp and Robinson, there stood a maple tree of about forty years
growth, about sixteen inches in diameter, and with a branch extension of from forty to fifty feet. The boundary line
ran substantially through the middle of the trunk of said tree.

Robinson wanted to build a dwelling house along the boundary line which, according to Clapp, would cause the
removal of a portion of the tree and the destruction of the life of the whole tree.

ISSUE: Whether or not Robinson could be prevented from interfering with the tree?

HELD: Yes, with respect to the trunk of the tree but he can cut branches as allowed by law. Each of the
land-owners upon whose land any part of a trunk of a tree stands has an interest in that tree, a property in it, equal in
the first instance to, or perhaps rather identical with, the part which is upon his land; and in the next place embracing
the right to demand that the owner of the other portion shall so use his part as not unreasonably to injure or destroy
the whole.

However, it might perhaps fairly be urged that to prevent Robinson from removing that portion of the trunk of the
tree upon his own land thereby depriving him of the opportunity to build upon it as desired would be likely to
produce a greater irreparable injury to Robinson than such removal and the consequent destruction of the life of the
tree would cause Clapp.

The law is already well settled that where the branches of a tree extend over an adjacent owners land, he may lop
them off up to the line, even though that was practically to the trunk of the tree. In this case a portion of the trunk is
on the Robinsons land, and the branch extension of forty to fifty feet, as found, presumably reaches across it. That
he should have less right to lop these branches because he owns a portion of the tree than if he owned none of it
appears to be unreasonable.

Therefore, the injunction should not extend further than to restrain the Robinson from cutting any portion of the
trunk and any further cutting of the branches or of the roots than he might lawfully have done had the trunk stood
wholly upon the plaintiffs land, but reaching to the defendants line.