Lennon v. Terrall
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Lemon v. Curington (Idaho 1957)
- Jurgens v. Wiese (Neb. 1949)
- Weisel v. Hobbs (Neb. 1940)
- Wendy Vanderpool v. Chad W Hart (Mich. Ct. App. 2022)
- Wendy Vanderpool v. Chad W Hart (Mich. Ct. App. 2022)
- Love v. Klosky (Colo. App. 2016)
- Levine v. Black (Mass. 1942)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The parties are adjoining lot owners. A large tree stands on the line dividing the lots. Defendant began to take it down. After he had taken off some limbs he was restrained at the suit of plaintiff, who prayed permanent injunction and damages. Plaintiff had decree. Defendant has appealed.
Every question presented by appellant assumes the body or trunk of the tree to be on his land, and his case is briefed on that assumption. The record is wholly to the effect that the trunk of the tree is on the line, so the questions call for no discussion.
*101 This tree is the common property of both parties and neither has the right to cut, injure, or destroy it without consent of the other. 1 C. J. p. 1233.
Decree affirmed. Costs to appellee.
to property rights in trees on or overhanging boundary line, see annotation in 21 L. R. A. 729; 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 3.
On rights and remedies in case of encroachment of trees, shrubbery or other vegetation across boundary line, see annotation in 76 A. L. R. 1111.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.