Lennon v. Terrall

244 N.W. 245, 260 Mich. 100, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 1083
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided September 16, 1932·No. Docket No. 56, Calendar No. 36,568.·Published·Cited by 7 cases

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

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

244 N.W. 245 (Lennon v. Terrall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wendy Vanderpool v. Chad W Hart
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2022
Love v. Klosky
2016 COA 131 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2016)
Lemon v. Curington
306 P.2d 1091 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1957)
Jurgens v. Wiese
38 N.W.2d 261 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1949)
Levine v. Black
44 N.E.2d 774 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1942)
Weisel v. Hobbs
294 N.W. 448 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1940)