« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
land which he hires to carry on a business there may add things as a part of his business and take them away, which things he would be obliged to leave if they were not con nected with his business.
B. Things held to be removable by an outgoing tenant.-Barns, stables, out-houses and sheds resting on logs or rollers, because this showed them to be affixed to the land only temporarily. Ornamental chimney-pieces, fire-frame, furnaces, cooking stove, gates, looking-glasses, trade fixtures generally.
There are two rules to be remembered, of almost universal force. One is that the outgoing tenant who has attached to the land or placed upon the premises anything which he cannot remove and leave the buildings or the land in as good condition as before, must leave that thing behind him.
The other is that an owner of land who attaches to his land or building almost any of the things which a tenant may remove, when he sells the land or building sells that thing, unless he expressly reserves a right to remove it.
4. MANURE.—If a man sells his farm he sells with the farm all the manure upon it, whether it be spread on the fields or is heaped up in the barn-yard or cellar.
If he lets his farm to another, the hirer takes the manure, unless the lessor reserves the right to take it away, and when the lease expires and the land returns to the owner, the manure goes with the land.
The owner of a farm may undoubtedly, before he sells it, remove the manure or sell it separately, if he does this openly and not secretly, and not in such a way as to deceive and cheat the buyer of the farm. What the right of the outgoing tenant is may not be so certain. But it may now be considered as the law of this country that a tenant who has occupied a farm on a lease, and whose lease is about to expire, cannot sell or remove the manure, but it
with the farm to the owner. 5. Rocks, STONES, Soil.—These belong wholly to the owner of the land, and whoever buys it buys an absolute right to them. No man can take away a pebble or a spoonful of earth without a breach of the law. This is obvious, for if a man could take one spoonful he could take many, and that might be a cartload
And if he might take a pebble, he might take the rocks. These must belong to the owner of the land.
6. ADJOINING ROADS.—If one's farm is bounded by a road, and there are no restrictions or reservations in the deeds through which he derives title, he owns to the middle of the road, subject only to the right of the public to use it as a road, or, as it is called, their right of way; subject also to whatever rights the law of the State gives to surveyors of roads and highways, or other officers. Thus, he owns the grass on the road, and may take stone or gravel from the road as freely as from any part of the farm, provided he fills the vacant places with equally good road material and leaves the road in as good condition as before.
When the owner of a farm owns to the middle of the adjoining road he has all the rights to the land consistent with the public right of way. He may plant trees on the sidewalk if per mitted by proper authority, or unless they obstruct the use of the road, and they remain his property.
Officers charged with the care of roads may remove them, but individuals are liable for their wanton destruction. If one fastens his horse to the trees, and the horse injures the trees, the man who tied him there is liable.
The owner of a farm cannot put any permanent structure on an adjoining road, nor keep his carts and sleds there nor pile his wood there, and if he does he is liable to anyone who suffers an injury from running against them while traveling over the highway.
7. TREES.—Of course the owner of a farm buys and owns all the trees upon it if at the time of the sale they were blown down and lie on the ground, but not if they have been cut for sale or fuel. There have been some cases in courts turning upon the question what are his rights if his trees hang over his neighbor's fields, and what are his neighbor's rights.
In the first place his neighbor owns his land absolutely, and all that is above and below it. Therefore he may cut away every bough and twig which comes over his land. And he may dig down close to the line of his land and cut away every root that comes into his land. But how is it as to the fruit which grows upon their branches ? This fruit, like the branches
themselves, belongs to the owner of the tree. His neighbor may cut the branches away, and they may fall on his ground, but he has no right to them. The original owner loses no prop . erty in them, but has a right to enter peaceably upon the land where they lie and take the fallen boughs away. So he retains his property in the fruit, and may enter upon the land where it lies, and gather it and take it away. Such, we think, are the conclusions to be derived from the best adjudication and the best reasoning on the subject.
TRESPASSING ON THE FARX.
1. WHO IS A TRESPASSER.—The right of an owner of a farm to its entire possession is so absolute in law that nobody can set foot upon it, by day or night, against the owner's will, with. out committing what the law calls a trespass, or a breach of the law for which he is answerable. A man's house, says the old maxim, is his castle, as effectually protected by the law as a castle by its walls and battlements. If a stranger goes at proper hours only upon the roads and paths of the farm, although they are not public, they are so far open that one who walks on them without evil design and without doing harm, and without express prohibition of some kind, would be held to have in some sort the owner's permission. But one who walks on the grass, or perhaps anywhere but on the roads or paths, is sa trespasser, if without express permission.
2. OF THE RIGHT OF THE FARMER TO ORDER A TRESPASSER OFF FROM HIS LAND. His right to do this is unquestionable. But suppose that he gives such an order and the trespasser will not go. What can the farmer do? Then the owner of the farm, or of any lot of land, however small, has an equally unquestionable right to put him off forcibly if the trespasser will not go peaceably. But how much force may the owner use? The answer to this question is distinct and certain so far as the law goes, but there may be some difficulty in the actual application of the rule. The rule of law is, that the owner of the land may, in order to expell the trespasser, "put his hands gently upon him.” But then the question comes
what is "gently.” This question has been through English courts for centuries. They have come to a conclusion which the American courts generally adopt. This conclusion is that the owner may use whatever force is necessary to expel the trespasser, provided on the one hand that he does him no grievous bodily injury, and on the other that he uses no more force than the trespasser makes necessary.
For example: A goes into B's house, or barn, or on his land, and persists in remaining there, although B orders him away. B may lay hold of him, may summon help, and with as much help as he needs seize him, and if need be bind him hand and foot, carry him bodily off his premises, and then unbind him. Always on this condition, that he uses no more violence than is requisite to remove him, and that he avoids such measures as would do serious or permanent harm or endanger life or limb. But while B does only what is needed to remove A, and does this with sufficient care, if A by some accident is injured, B is not responsible, for it is A's own fault.
Of course an
may make or unmake his own roads or ways at his pleasure. His neighbor has nothing to do with them, unless the owner give him leave to use them, and a right of way must be conveyed by a deed, in like manner as the land itself. If, indeed, his neighbor claims a right to use one of them, and under that claim uses it as he would his own for more than twenty years without the permis. sion of the owner, such neighbor might acquire a right of way by prescription. And if such rights of way become attached to a farm by prescription, whoever buys a farm buys with it those rights of way. But such a case would not often occur.
If a farmer sells a lot surrounded by the farm, he sells with it a right to pass to and from the lot. But the seller may mark out a sufficient passage to and from the land, and over that the buyer must go. And when a public highway is laid out which gives access to the lot, the buyer of it loses his right of passage over the seller's land, because this right is no longer necessary to his use and occupation of the lot.
The owner of a farm owns the ponds upon his farm and the running streams, so far as to make a reasonable use of them for his land, stock, or house. He may change the course of a stream on his own land, but he must not divert it frorn his neighbor's land, nor can he lead it into his neighbor's land else. where than in its natural channel. He may dam it up so as to make ponds on his own land, but cannot overflow his neighbor's land except for mill purposes under the local laws regulating such use of the water. If he does, his neighbor may enter his farm and remove the dam so far as to relieve his land from the overflow; and if the stream be obstructed by stones or rubbish on his neighbor's farm, he may go on his neighbor's land to remove the obstruction, and may put this on the banks of the stream. He may dig anywhere on his own land, even if he cuts off the springs which water his neighbor's land or supply his well or pond, for his neighbor has no property or legal interest in the waters which flow or stand below the surface of the land.
As the owner of a farm owns a stream or brook which runs through his farm, so if a farm bounds on a running stream that is not navigable he owns to what is called the thread of the stream, which is the middle of the main current, and may be on one side or the other of the middle of the stream.
There is a principle of law applicable in a reasonable way to everyone, and to the ownership and use of all property. It is this : “A man must use what is his own so as not to injure his neighbor.” This rule applies distinctly to a man's right to kindle fire on his land. A man who owns any land, much or little, may kindle what fire he will upon it and burn what he will in the fire. But he is always responsible for the damage his fire does if he were negligent in any way about it. It may be that his neighbor's fences or buildings are so near him that he could not build a fire upon any part of his land without endangering his