Smith v. Giddy. 1904
Kings Bench Division, June 1904. Wills and Kennedy, JJ.
This case involved damage caused by overhanging branches.
The plaintiff was a nurseryman and he owned a nursery and orchard which adjoined the land of the defendant. On the defendants land were a number of trees which overhung the plaintiffs property and interfered with his Apple trees growing in the orchard. He claimed that the overhanging branches had caused fifty pounds worth of damage so he pursued the defendant for damages and an injunction to prevent the defendant from permitting the branches to continue to overhang the boundary.
The case was heard at Chertsey County Court by a county court judge, whose judgement favoured the defendant. It was his judgement that the plaintiff should remove the nuisance himself by cutting the branches back to the boundary.
The plaintiff appealed and won.
During the appeal Kennedy, J. said "A person has land on which he is entitled to grow trees, but by what right can he claim immunity if he allows that which is on his premises, and which may do damage of this kind, to inflict damage upon his neighbour".
And later in his judgement said "but where a tree is overhanging and damage results from the overhanging branches to that persons neighbour, I do not see why the only right should be for that neighbour to go to the expense and labour of lopping the branches himself."
One of the principle cases referred to during this case was Rylands v. Fletcher.