The question whether the fact that one's motive in making a use of his land which injures his neighbor was merely to cause such injury is in itself sufficient to make his course of action illegal and a source of liability, is a branch of the much discussed question of the effect of motive as an

4d. Russell v. Watts, 10 App. Cas. 590, 596, 610; Crofford v. Atlanta, B. & A. R. Co., 158 Ala. 286, 48 So. 366; Western Granite & Marble Co. v. Knickerbocker, 103 Cal. 111, 37 Pac. 192; Turner v. Thompson, 58 Ga. 268, 24 Am.

Rep. 497; Tinker v. Forbes, 136 111. 221, 26 N. E. 503; Lapere v. Luckey, 23 Kan. 534, 33 Am. Rep 196; Rogers v. Sawin, 10 Gray (Mass.) 376; Shipman v. Beery, ? Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 435; Letts v. Kessler, 54 Ohio St. 73, 40 L. R. A. 177, 42 N. E. 765; Haver-slick v. Byrnes, 33 Pa. 368; Bailey v. Gray, 53 S. C. 503, 31 S. E. 354.

5. Aldred's Case, 9 Coke 59; Attorney General v. Doughty, 2 Ves. Sr. 453; Ray v. Lynes, 10 Ala. 63; Guest v. Reynolds, 68 111. 478, 18 Am. Rep. 570; Jenks v. Williams, 115 Mass. 217; Hawkins v. Sanders, 45 Mich. 491, S N. W. 98; Quintini v. City of Bay St. Louis, 64 Miss. 483, 60

Am. Rep. 62, 1 So. 625; Harwood v. Tompkins, 24 N. J. Law, 425; Mahan v. Brown, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 261, 28 Am. Dec. 461; Lyon v. McDonald, 78 Tex. 71, 9 L. R. A. 295, 14 S. W. 261.

6. Butt v. Imperial Gas. Co., 2 Ch. App. 158; Smith v. Owen, 35 Law J. Ch. 317; Gallagher v. Dodge, 48 Conn. 387, 40 Am. Rep. 182.

7. Tapling v. Jones, 11 H. L. Cas. 290; Pierce v. Lemon, 3 Houst. (Del) 519; Guest v. Reynolds, 68 111. 478, 18 Am. Rep. 570; Pierre v. Fernald, 26 Me. 436, 46 Am. Dec. 573; Christ Church v. Lavezzolo, 156 Mass. 89, 30 N. E. 475; People v. Detroit Lead Works, 82 Mich. 471, 9 L R. A. 770, 46 N. W. 735; Mahan v. Brown, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 261, 28 Am. Dec. 461; Shell v. Kemmerer, 13 Phila. (Pa.) 502; Frost v. Berkeley Phosphate Co., 42 S. C. 402, 26 L. R. A. 693, 46 Am. St. Rep. 736, 20 S. E. 280.

Element in tort,8 a question upon which the authorities are not in accord. It has been decided in a number of cases that the erection of a "spite fence," that is, of a fence or wall constructed merely for the purpose of annoying one's neighbor, is not a wrongful act,9 but there are occasional decisions to the contrary.10

In some states a statute forbids any malicious erection, or the malicious erection or maintenance of a fence. It has been decided, under such a statute, that a structure is not maliciously erected unless the intention to injure was the predominant motive leading to its erection.11 And such a statute in reference to a fence has been construed as applying only to a fence on or near the division line.12 A statute, making it illegal to erect or maintain a fence, unnecessarily ex seeding a certain height, for the purpose of annoying one's neighbor, has been held to be a valid exercise of the police power,13 and a like view has been taken of a statute applying to any malicious erection.14 A statute, however, requiring one to obtain the consent of his neighbor to the erection of any structure upon his land is no doubt in excess of the legislative power.15

8. See particularly the discussion of this question in 18 Harv Law Rev. at p. 411, article by Professor J. B. Ames, and in 22

Id. at p. 501, article by F. P. Walton, Esq; also articles by Professor Jeremiah Smith in 20 Harv. Law Rev. pp. 453-455, and 30 Id. 259, 260. The matter is also referred to in notes in 26 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 742, and in 22 Law Quart. Rev. at p. 118. Many authorities are cited in the opinions in Barger v. Barringer. 151 N. C. 433, 66 S. E. 439, 25 L. R. A. N. S. 831, 19 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 472; Hutton v. Watters, 132 Tenn. 527, L. R. A. (N. S.) 1916B, 1238, 179 S. W. 134.

9. Guest v. Reynolds, 68 111. 478, 18 Am. Rep. 570; Russell v. State. 32 Ind. App. 243, 69 N. E. 482; Lapere v. Luckey, 23 Kan. 534, 33 Am. Rep. 194; Brostrom v Lauppe, 179 Mass. 315, 60 N. E. 785; Bordeaux v. Green, 22 Mont. 254, 56 Pac. 218, 74 Am. St. Rep. 600; Mahan v. Brown, 13 Wend (N. Y.) 261; Pickard v. Collins, 23 Barb. (N. Y.) 444; Letts v. Kessler, 54 Ohio St. 73,

40 L. R. A. 177, 42 N. E. 765; Koblegard v. Hale, 60 W. Va. 37, 116 Am. St. Rep. 868, 9 Ann. Cas. 732, 53 S. E. 593; Metzger v. Hoohreim, 107 Wis. 267, 50 L. R. A. 305, 81 Am. St. Rep. 841, 83 N. W. 30S; Huber v. Merkel, 117 Wis. 355, 94 N. W. 354. See also Falloon v. Schilling, 29 Kan. 292. 44 Am. Rep. 642.

10. Norton v. Randolph, 176 Ala. 381, 40 L. R. A. N. S. 129, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 714, 58 So. 283;

Burke v. Smith, 69 Mich. 380, 37 N. W. 838; Flaherty v. Moran, 81 Mich. 52, 8 L. R. A. 183, 21 Am. St. Rep. 510, 45 N. W. 381; Kirk-wood v. Finegan, 95 Mich. 543, 55 N. W. 457; Bush v. Mockett, 95 Neb. 552, 145 N. W. 1001; Horan v. Byrnes, 72 N. H. 93, 62 L. R. A. 602, 101 Am. St. Rep. 670, 54 Atl. 915; Barger v. Barringer, 151 N. Car. 433, 25 L. R. A. N. S. 831, 19 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 472, 66 S. E. 439; Hibbbard v. Halliday, - Okla. -, 158 Pac. 1158.

11. Gallagher v. Dodge, 48 Conn. 387, 40 Am. Rep. 382; Lord v. Langdon, 91 Me. 221, 39 Atl.