70 Cal. 161 | Cal. | 1886
The court below sustained a demurrer to the complaint. “ Trees whose branches extend over the land of another are not nuisances, except to the extent to which -the branches overhang the adjoining land. To that extent they are nuisances, and the person over whose land they extend may cut them off or have his action for damages, and an abatement of the nuisance against the owner or occupant of the land on which they grow, but he may not cut down the tree, neither can he cut the branches thereof beyond the extent to which they overhang his soil.” (Wood on Nuisances, sec. 112, citing Commonwealth v. Blaisdell, 107 Mass. 234; Commonwealth v. McDonald, 16 Serg. & R. 390.)
So, it' would seem, he may have abated the roots projecting into his soil, at least if he has suffered actual damage thereby.
The general demurrer should have been overruled.
The defendant also demurred on the ground of the mis
While we are compelled to hold that the complaint is not subject to general demurrer, nor to a demurrer for misjoinder of actions, we think that it is ambiguous and uncertain.
Judgment affirmed.
Myrick, J., and Ross, J., concurred.