A tree the trunk of which is upon the division line between the lands of two persons is, prima facie at least, the property of both,44 and neither can destroy it.45 If, however, the trunk is entirely on the land of one proprietor, the tree belongs to him, even though the roots extend into the other's land.46

Branches of a tree planted on the ground of one proprietor constitute a nuisance if they extend over the land of another proprietor, and, they may be removed by the latter;47 but he is not entitled to appro65 N. Y. 411. But it has been held that a sublessee who sowed after the commencement of an ejectment proceeding by the chief landlord to enforce a forfeiture of the interest of the sublessor could not claim the crops as against the chief landlord. Samson v. Rose, 65 N. Y. 411.

44. Robinson v. Clapp, C5 Conn. 365, 29 L R. A. 582. 32 Atl. 939; Phillips v. Brittingham, 2 Boyce

(Bel.) 173, 77 Atl. 964; Musch v. Burkhart, 83 Iowa 301, 12 L. It. A. 484, 32 Am. St. Rep. 305, 48 N W. 1025; Blalock v. Atwood, 154 Ky. 394, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 3, 157 S. W. 694; Yoakum v. Davis, 162 Mo. App. 253, 144 S. W. 877; Graffin v. Bixby, 12 N. H. 454; Dubois v. Beaver, 25 N. Y. 123; Reiyea v. Beaver, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 547; Skinner v Wilder, 33 Vt. 115, 88 Am. Dec. 645.

45. Scarborough v. Woodill, 7 Cal. App. 39, 93 Pac. 583; Musch v. Burkhart, 83 Iowa, 301, 12 L. R. A. 484, 32 Am. St Rep. 305, 48 N. W. 1025; Dubois v. Beaver, 25 N. Y. 123, 82 Am. Dec. ?26; Comfort v. Everhardt, 35 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 364. In Robinson v. Clapp, 65 Conn. 365, 29 L. R A. 582, 32 Atl. 939; it was decided that one of the adjoining proprietors could cut off the branches overhanging his land, but could not cut away any portion of the trunk.

46. Masters v. Pollie, 2 Rolle, 141; Lyman v. Hale, 11 Conn. 177, Skinner v. Wilder, 38 Vt. 115, 88 Am. Dec. 645; Dubois v. Beaver, 25 N. Y. 123, 82 Am Dec. 326. And see Holder v. Ccates, 1 Moody & that if two persons enter into an agreement for the manufacture or production of any class of property, each party contributing labor, materials, or capital for the purpose, they are to be regarded as tenants in common of the product. Adopting still another view, the owner of the land might be regarded as conveying to the cultivator, by his entry into the agreement, an interest in the crops to be produced in the future equal to his stipulated share, it being recognized, in most jurisdictions at least, that the owner of land may transfer an interest in a crop yet to be planted.48n Even though the agreement be verbal, it might thus, it seems, take effect as a transfer of an interest in future crops, annual crops (fructus industriales) not being regarded as land within the Statute of Frauds.48o

M. 112. Contra, Anon., 2 Rolle, 255; Waterman v. Soper, 1 Ld. Raym. 737. For a discussion of the respective origins of the civil and common law rules in this regard, see article by Professor Roscoe Pound, 31 Harv. Law Rev. 1049.

47. Grandona v. Lovdal, 70 Cal. 361; Lyman v. Hale, 1l Conn. 177; Harndon v. Siultz, 124 Iowa 440, 100 N. W. 329; Ackerman v. Ellis 81 N. J. L. 1, 79 Atl. 883; Hoffman v. Armstrong, 48 N. Y. 201; Cobb v. Western Union Tel. Co., 90 Vt. 342, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 1156, 98 Atl. 758; Lemmon v. Webb, [1894] 3 Ch. Div. 1.