Lennon v. Terrall

Michigan Supreme Court

Lennon v. Terrall

244 N.W. 245, 260 Mich. 100, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 1083

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 16, 1932

DocketDocket No. 56, Calendar No. 36,568.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 244 N.W. 245 (Lennon v. Terrall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lennon v. Terrall, 244 N.W. 245, 260 Mich. 100, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 1083 (Mich. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, C. J.

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.

McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Clark, C. J.

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.

McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 N.W. 245, 260 Mich. 100, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 1083, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lennon-v-terrall-mich-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack