WPCB pv6HB$9`Ǩ 7; '3H8NJÝЅ AMhЀ)qPVHILE#Ǻ[߇O?O?yU SꇈV|^^ 2b7 -:kC'o+!uf\Sύ3?a jg2r^ؤl)Xf1R6(אc撖~Y?kߑb|s2.:^9C^ESS}0=:(ɎH;abUb |P~}+wB!6,Nǵhפz3ftwm aZlqWF:-|͎4N[hPgxa2S?R{pzZ$,̿m X,;Zx#Pv| YhC#; >+5J4+E -tT*D"R:b#\ % N# 0% UN  z z}   ^ w 4   KN mEl~oU@ 0 D-qwLH#2* Q1l[5666U,777777777b888y&8 99999999999999999999999999999999 0 ==== B>> 0> D3k? D-? 0K?? AS@i@ 0/A 0DA ABHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPT C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptu-s ,-.bk Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53|x U b RA$      1    _Itappearsbasedonphotographscontainedintherecordthatthelimbcamefromatreethatwasonlyafewfeet  fromtheplaintiffshouse#~#. t RA$      8    _See,e.g.,Whitesellv.Houlton,632P.2d1077(Haw.Ct.App.1981);##ԀChandlerv.Larson,500N.E.2d584  (Ill.Ct.App.1986);Toledo,St.LouisandKansasCityR.RCo.v.Loop,39N.E.306(Ind.1894)##;Piercev.Casady,711 t P.2d766(Kan.Ct.App.1985);##Holmbergv.Bergin,172N.W.2d739(Minn.1969);Abbinettv.Fox,703P.2d177 8 (N.M.Ct.App.1985);Turnerv.Coppola,424N.Y.S.2d864(N.Y.Sup.Ct.1980);Rautsawv.Clark,488N.E.2d243 L (OhioCt.App.1985).SeealsoMeadv.Vincent,187P.2d994(Okla.1947).###-#(hH  Z(Times New Roman (#$  0    RA$      2    _Thedefendantsestoppelargumentwasnotraisedordecidedinthetrialcourt.Therefore,theissueiswaived.  SeeInReAdoptionofE.N.R.,42S.W.3d26,3132(Tenn.2001).Eveniftheissuehadbeenraised,itwouldhave t availedthedefendantnothingbecausetheplaintiffattemptedselfhelp,unliketheplaintiffinGranberry,bychopping 8 awaywhatrootsshecould.Thus,itcannotbesaidthattheplaintiffmerelysatonherrights.Furthermore,wenotethat L branchesandrootscanconstituteacontinuingnuisancewhichcanrecurnomatterwhattheinjuredpartydoesbyway  ofselfhelp,absenttheremovalordestructionofthetree.Asonecourthassaid, giventheratherunremarkable  observationthattreeswilltendtogrow,thetrespass,evenifremediedonce,isboundtorecurjustassoonasthetrees H  orshrubberyregenerate.Jonesv.Wagner,624A.2d166,170(Pa.Super.Ct.1993)##.Finally,wenotethatalthough  \ thedefendantassertedastatuteoflimitationsdefenseinitsanswertothecomplaintandarguedtheissueattrial,the   statuteoflimitationsissuehasnotbeenraisedonappeal.  RA$      6    _ Apurchasesandtakespossessionoflandonwhichhavebeenplantedanumberofeucalyptustreesnearthe  boundarylineofBsland.TherootsoftheeucalyptustreesgrowintoBsland,withtheresultthatwalnuttreesgrowing t thereonarestuntedandotherwisedamaged.AlthoughAknowsofthis,hedoesnotcutdowntheeucalyptustrees.A 8 issubjecttotherulestatedin839[heissubjecttoliabilityfornuisance],sincetheeucalyptustreesarenotanatural L condition.Restatement(Second)ofTorts840,cmt.a,illus.4(1979). B RA$      11    _Inoneofthefirstpublishedprivatenuisancecases,WilliamAldredsCase,77Eng.Rep.816(1610),the  plaintifffiledsuitbecausethedefendant erectedahogstyesonearthehouseoftheplaintiffthattheairthereofwas t corrupted.Id.Theplaintiffclaimedthathewas disturbedinandhinderedfromenjoyinghisproperty.Id.In 8 response,thedefendantarguedthattheplaintiff oughtnottohavesodelicateanosethathecannotbearthesmellof L hogs.Id.at817.Thecourtfoundfortheplaintiff,concludingthat itmaybethatbeforetimeofmemory[alandowner  hashadarightto]wholesomeaironhisproperty.Id.at821.Thedefendantwasthusfoundliablefordeprivingthe  plaintiffofthe useandprofitofhishouse.Id.at82122. > RA$      9    _Itisimportanttonote,however,thatdeadordecayingtreesthatcauseharmareinacategoryoftheirownand  requireadifferentanalysis.Unlikethecasesinvolvingharmcausedbylivetrees,whicharebasedonnuisanceor t trespassprinciples,casesinvolvingdeadordecayingtreesaretypicallyanalyzedaccordingtonegligenceconcepts. 8 Thus,liabilityusuallyturnsonwhetherthedefendantlandownerlivedinanurbanorruralarea,andwhetherthe L defendantkneworshouldhaveknownthatthetreewasdeadordecayingandthereforewasonnoticethatthetreemight  fall.See,e.g,Staplesv.Duell,494S.E.2d639(S.C.Ct.App.1997);Taylorv.Higley,No.02A019207CV00194,  1993WL137593(Tenn.Ct.App.May3,1993);seealsoRestatement(Second)ofTorts363(2)(1965)#~#;DanB.Dobbs, H  TheLawofTorts58889(2000).Thetreesinvolvedinthepresentcasearelive,healthytrees.Thus,wedonotreach  \  thequestioninthiscaseofwhetherortowhatextentliabilitymaybeimposedforharmcausedbyadeadordecaying  tree.Thatsubjectmustawaitanappropriatecase.#~# ( RA$      3    _See,e.g.,Drummondv.Franck,41So.2d268,273(Ala.1949);Cannonv.Dunn,700P.2d502,503(Ariz.  Ct.App.1985);Bondev.Bishop,245P.2d617,620(Cal.Ct.App.1952);McCrannv.TownPlanandZoningComm., t 282A.2d900,906(Conn.1971);Sterlingv.Weinstein,75A.2d144,148(D.C.Cir.1950);Gallov.Heller,512So.2d 8 215,216(Fla.Ct.App.1987);Whitesellv.Houlton,632P.2d1077,1079(Haw.Ct.App.1981);Lemonv.Curington, L 306P.2d1091,1092(Idaho1957);Toledo,St.LouisandKansasCityR.R.Co.v.Loop,39N.E.306,307(Ind.1894);  Piercev.Casady,711P.2d766,767(Kan.Ct.App.1985);Michalsonv.Nutting,175N.E.490,491(Mass.1931)##;   Melnickv.C.S.X.Corp.,540A.2d1133,1135(Md.1988);Holmbergv.Bergin,172N.W.2d739,744(Minn.1969);  Jurgensv.Wiese,38N.W.2d261,263(Neb.1949);Wegenerv.Sugarman,138A.699,700(N.J.1927);Loggiav. t Grobe,491N.Y.S.2d973,974(1985);  Jonesv.Wagner,624A.2d166,168(Pa.Super.Ct.1993)#|#;Rosav.Oliveira,342 8 A.2d601,605(R.I.1975);Oglev.Trotter,495S.W.2d558,565(Tenn.Ct.App.1973);Cobbv.WesternUnionTel. L Co.,98A.758,759(Vt.1916);Gostinav.Ryland,199P.298,301(Wash.1921).  RA$      5    _*XX XX*Ӏ Thetraditionalruleofnonliability[theMassachusettsrule]developedatatimewhenlandwasmostly  unsettledanduncultivated.Thelandowner,unabletokeepadailyaccountofandremedyallofthedangerousconditions t arisingoutofpurelynaturalcauses,wasthereforeshieldedfromliabilityoutofnecessity.Whiletherearemanyreasons 8 tocontinuethetraditionalruleinregionsthatarelargelyrural,thereislittleornoreasontoapplyitinurbanandother L developedareas.Inurbancentersitwouldnotbeundulyburdensomeforasmallpropertyownertoinspecthisproperty  andtotakereasonableprecautionsagainstdangerousnaturalconditions.Chandler,500N.E.2dat587(citations  omitted). b RA$      7    _See,e.g.,KenCowdenChevrolet,Inc.v.Corts,316N.W.2d259,261(Mich.Ct.App.1982);Griefieldv.  GibralterFire&MarineIns.Co.,24So.2d356,35758(Miss.1946).  RA$      12    _Thetrialcourtmadenofindingsregardingdamagesorwhetherabatementofthenuisancewouldbe  appropriate.󀀀,  AZArial - -   o RA$      10    _Incontrasttoaprivatenuisance,apublicnuisanceistheinterferencewiththepublicsuseandenjoymentof  apublicplace.MetropolitanGovtofNashvillev.Counts,541S.W.2d133,138(Tenn.1976).  RA$      4    _See,e.g.,##Sterlingv.Weinstein,75A.2d144,148(D.C.Cir.1950);ԀRichmondv.Gen._Engg_ԀEnter.Co.,454  So.2d16,17(Fla.Ct.App.1984);_Schwalbach_Ԁv.ForestLawn_Meml_ԀPark,687S.W.2d551,552(Ky.Ct.App.1985); t _Michalson_Ԁv.Nutting,175_N.E._Ԁ490,491(Mass.1931)XX;#XX###Ԁ_Melnick_Ԁv._C.S.X._ԀCorp.,540A.2d1133,1137(Md.1988).#I#  (|G2A$ !.8HdXXd8         0   d(|3 c$ !.8HdXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 c$ !.8HdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Hdd8     _   H8XXdd80OY =Hdd=@ AHAAINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#HAZ#Ԉ &    @ November13,2002Session L XXH #HXXh#GLORIAB.LANEv._W.J._ԀCURRY&SONSXXH  J @@ AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofAppeals,WesternSection  J ЀCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  6 @@No.301117T.D.RobertL.Childers,Judge  " @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200001580SCR11CVFiledDecember19,_2002_   AV) ` dE<h` A i     Wegrantedreviewinthiscasetodeterminewhetheralandownercanbringanuisanceactionagainst d anadjoininglandownerwhentreebranchesandrootsfromtheadjoininglandownersproperty P encroachuponanddamagetheneighboringlandownersproperty.Theplaintiffassertsthat < encroachingbranchesandrootsfromthedefendantstreesconstituteanuisanceforwhichsheis (x entitledtoseekdamages.Thedefendantrespondsthattheplaintiffssoleremedyisselfhelpand, d therefore,theplaintiffmaynotrecoverforanyharmcausedbythedefendantstrees.Thetrialcourt P andCourtofAppealsagreedwiththedefendant,andheldthatanadjoininglandownersonlyremedy < isselfhelpandthatanuisanceactioncannotbebroughttorecoverforharmcausedbyencroaching ( treebranchesandroots.#HXX#XXH#XXXXy#XXXX  Wehavedeterminedthatselfhelpisnotthesoleremedyofanadjoininglandownerandthat#XXXXѰ #XXXX#HXXn #XXHa  nuisanceactionmaybebroughtwhentreebranchesandrootsfromtheadjacentpropertyencroach  uponanddamagetheneighboringlandownersproperty.#HXXѦ #XXH#XXXXd #XXXXԀAlthoughencroachingtreesandplantsare t notnuisancesmerelybecausetheycastshade,dropleaves,flowers,orfruit,orjustbecausethey ` encroachuponadjoiningpropertyeitheraboveorbelowtheground,#XXXX #XXXX#HXXѪ #XXHthey#XXXX( #XXXXmayberegardedasa L  nuisancewhentheycauseactualharmorposeanimminentdangerofactualharmtoadjoining 8!  property.Ifso,theownerofthetreeorplantmaybeheldresponsibleforharmcausedbyitandmay $"t! alsoberequiredtocutbacktheencroachingbranchesorroots,assumingtheencroachingvegetation #`" constitutesanuisance.Wedonot,however,alterexistingTennesseelawthattheadjoining #L# landowner#XXXXѱ #XXXXԀmay,athisownexpense,cutawaytheencroachingvegetationtothepropertyline $8 $ whetherornottheencroachingvegetation#XXXX#XXXXԀconstitutesanuisanceorisotherwisecausingharmor %$!% potentialharmtotheadjoiningproperty#XXXX#XXXX.#XXXXс##HXXj #XXHXXXXԀWefurtherfindthattherecordinthiscaseissufficientto &"& establishliabilityfornuisance.#XXXX#XXXX#HXX#XXHԀAccordingly,thejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsaffirmingthetrial '"' courtsdismissalofthecaseisreversed.Thecaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforadetermination (#( ofdamagesandotherappropriaterelief#HXX#XXH#XXXXѾ#XXXX. )$) d Tenn.R.App.P.11AppealbyPermission;JudgmentoftheTrialCourtandCourtof \+&+ AppealsReversedandRemanded  H,',  4-(- _  #HXC#XX.HFrankF.Drowota,III,C.J.deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichE.RileyAnderson,  AdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,JaniceM.Holder,andWilliamM.Barker,Jr.,JJ.,joined.  ElderShearon,III,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheplaintiffappellant,GloriaB.Lane. t RobertA.CoxandJamesF.Horner,Jr.,Memphis,Tennessee,forthedefendantappellee,W.J. L  Curry&Sons. 8  @@OO& OPINION #HXX#XXH $   #HXXU#XXHFactualandProceduralBackground        Thiscaseinvolvesadisputebetweenadjacentpropertyowners#XXXXх#XXXXԀoverharmcausedby p encroachingtreebranchesandroots.Theplaintiff,GloriaLane,ownsahouseinMemphislocated \ nextdoortoahouseownedbythedefendant,W.J.Curry&Sons.Theplaintiff,whois47yearsold H andunemployed,haslivedinthehouseallofherlife.Herdisabledbrotherliveswithher.The 4 defendantshouseisusedasrentalpropertyandisoccupied.Thehousesintheparties  p neighborhoodareatleastfiftyyearsoldandaresituatedclosetogether.  \ Ѐ H   Thedefendanthasthreelarge,healthyoaktreeslocatedonitspropertynearthecommon 4 boundarylinewiththeplaintiff.Thetreesaremuchtallerthanthepartieshousesandhavelimbs,   describedas extremelyprotruding,thathangovertheplaintiffshouse.Thedefendantstreeswere   describedas overshadowingthe[plaintiffs]entirehouse.Theplaintiffhashadproblemswiththe  treeslimbsandrootsencroachinguponherpropertyformanyyears.Herroof,forexample,hadto  bereplacedinthelate1980sbecausetheoverhangingbranchesdidnotallowtherooftoeverdry,  causingittorot.Theplaintifftestifiedthatpriortothattime [e]veryroofandwallin[her]house l hadturnedbrownandtheceilingwasjustfallingdown.Wewouldbeinbedatnighttimeandthe X  ceilingwouldjustfalldownandhitthefloor. D!   In1997,alargelimbfromoneofthedefendantstreeslocatedbetweenthepartieshouses #l! brokeoffandfellthroughtheplaintiffsroof,attic,andkitchenceiling,causingrainwatertoleakinto $X" theinteriorofherhome. #  1      ׀Thewaterruinedtheplaintiffsceilings,floor,andthestoveinher $D # kitchen.Theplaintiffisnotphysicallyabletocutthelimbsbackthathangoverherhouse,andshe %0!$ cannotaffordtohiresomeoneelsetodoit.Norcansheaffordtorepairthedamagetotheexterior &"% andinteriorofherhome,includingtheholeinherroof.#XXXXю#XXXXԀ '#&  (#'  XX  Inadditiontotheharmcausedbytheoverhangingbranches,rootsfromthedefendantstrees  haveinfiltratedandcloggedtheplaintiffssewerline,causingsevereplumbingproblems.The  plaintiffhastriedtochoptheencroachingrootsovertheyears,buttheykeepgrowingbackand  causingmoreplumbingproblems.#XXXX~##XXXXԀTheplaintiffhasnotbeenabletousehertoilet,bathtub,orsink t intwoyearsbecauseofthecloggedsewerpipes.Shemustgotoaneighborshousetousethe ` restroom.Rawsewagebubblesupintoherbathtub,andherbathroomfloorhashadtobereplaced L  becausehertoiletcontinuallybacksupandwaterspillsontoherfloor.#XXXXѕ%#XXXXԀNeighborshavecomplained 8  totheplaintiffaboutthesmellofsewagecomingfromherproperty.#XXXXv'#XXXXԀTheplaintifftestified#XXXX,(#XXXXԀ#XXXXч(#XXXXregarding $ t theconditionofherhome#XXXX(#XXXXԀthat everythingisallmessedup.Icantbathe.Icantcook.Idontwant  ` peoplecomingtomyhousebecauseithasodorsinit,fleas,flies,bugs.Itsjustbeenawfulforme.  L  Theplaintiffisunderthecareofapsychiatristand#XXXXC)#XXXXtakesmedicationforemotionalproblems.She  8  testifiedthatshemayhavetomoveoutofherhouse#XXXXѰ*#XXXXԀbecauseshe justcanttaketoomuchmore.#XXXXh+#XXXX $  Ѐ#XXXX+#XXXXԀ     Afterthedefendantsbranchfellthroughherroof,theplaintiffcontactedJudithHarris,the   ownerofdefendantW.J.Curry&Sons,tocomplainabouttheencroachingtreesandtoinformHarris   ofthedamagecausedbythefallenlimb.Harrissentatreetrimmingcompanytothepropertytocut   backtheoverhanginglimbs,butthisprovedunsatisfactorybecausebrancheshighupinthetrees p werenotcut,andthosethatwerecutgrewback.Harriseventuallytoldtheplaintiffthatshe,the \ plaintiff,couldtrimthebranchesorroots,butthatHarrisnolongerfeltanyresponsibilitytoremedy H thesituation. 4   TheplaintiffsubsequentlyfiledsuitinGeneralSessionsCourtseekingdamagestothe  \ exteriorandinteriorofherhouseandplumbingsystem#XXXX8,#XXXXԀcausedbytheencroachingbranchesand H roots.TheGeneralSessionsCourtfoundinfavorofthedefendant.Theplaintiffappealedthe 4 adversejudgmenttoCircuitCourt.Afterconductingabenchtrial,theCircuitCourt#XXXXA0#XXXXԀfoundthatthe   plaintiffwasphysicallyandfinanciallyunabletohavetheoverhangingbranchescutortheroots   destroyed.Nonetheless,thetrialcourtconcluded#XXXXш1#XXXXthattheplaintiffssoleremedywasselfhelpand  thatthedefendantstreescouldnotconstituteanactionablenuisance.Thetrialcourtexplainedthat  althoughitwas certainlyaserioussituationthattheplaintiffhasnotbeenabletouseherbathroom  fortwoyears...thesethreetreesarealiveandlivingandtheydowhattreesnormallydo.They l producebranchesandgrowandtheyproducearootsystem.Andeventhoughyoutrimthebranches X  backoryoutrimtherootsback,theyaregoingtoproducemorebranchesandmoreroots. D!   Onappeal,theCourtofAppealsagreedwiththetrialcourtsfindingthattheplaintiffwas #l! financiallyandphysicallyunabletoengageinselfhelpbeyondwhatshehadalreadytriedwithout $X" success.#XXXXї2#XXXXԀNonetheless,afternotingthat thethreeoaksatissueareviable,healthy,andinnoxious $D # treeswhosenaturalgrowthisaccompaniedbytheextensionoftheirbranchesandrootsoverand %0!$ intotheplaintiffsproperty#XXXXф6#XXXX,theintermediatecourt#XXXX7#XXXXԀconcludedthattheplaintiffsonlyremedywas &"% selfhelpandthathernuisanceactioncouldnotbesustained.Accordingly,#XXXX,8#XXXXԀtheCourtofAppeals '#& affirmedthetrialcourtsdismissalofthecase.#XXXX9#XXXXԀ#XXXXѡ9#XXXX (#'  h+&*   Analysis   I.Granberryv.Jones      Infindingthattheplaintiffsonlyremedywasselfhelpandthatanuisanceclaimcannotbe ` broughtforharmcausedbyencroachingtreebranchesandroots,#XXXX9#XXXXbothlowercourtsreliedonthis L  CourtsdecisioninGranberryv.Jones,216S.W.2d721(Tenn.1949).InGranberry,theparties 8  ownedresidencesonadjacentlots.Thedefendantplantedahedgerowonherpropertynearthe $ t commonboundaryline,whicheventuallygrewtoaheightoftwentyfeet.Branchesandfoliagefrom  ` thedefendantshedgeencroachedupontheplaintiffspropertyandrestedagainsthishouse.The  L  plaintiffallegedthatthehedgerowwasanuisancebecauseitsbranchesandfoliageblockedtheview  8  fromhiswindowsandcreatedasanctuaryforinsects.Healsoallegedthatdampconditions $  associatedwiththehedgecausedthedecayofhiswindowsills,awall,andafence.Theplaintiff   soughtanorderrequiringthedefendanttoeitherremoveortrimthehedge.Healsosoughtanaward   ofdamages.Id.at722.     ThisCourtheldinGranberrythattheplaintiff hadthelegalrighttocutanybranchesor p foliagewhichtoanyextenthungoverhissoilfromthehedgegrowingupontheadjoiningland.Id. \ at72223.Inreachingthisconclusion,wereliedonthethenprevailingrulethat nolandownerhas H acauseofactionfromthemerefactthatthebranchesofaninnoxioustree,belongingtoanadjoining 4 landowner,overhanghispremises,hisrighttocutofftheoverhangingbranchesbeingconsidered  p asufficientremedy.Id.at723.Therationalefortherulewasthatalandownerhasthe libertyto  \ usehisland,andallofit,togrowtrees[and]theirgrowthnaturallyandreasonablywillbe H accompaniedbytheextensionofboughsandthepenetrationofrootsoverandintoadjoining 4 propertyofothers.Id.at723(quotingMichalsonv.Nutting,175N.E.490(Mass.1931)).Wealso   notedthatlimitingaplaintiffsremedytoselfhelpwouldavoidsubjectinglandownerstothe    annoyance,andthepublictotheburden,ofactionsatlaw,whichwouldbelikelytobeinnumerable  and,inmanyinstances,purelyvexatious.Id.    However,wewentoninGranberrytoobservethat ourconclusion...iswithoutprejudice l towhateverrights,ifany,[theplaintiff]mayhaveforrecoveryoftheexpensetowhichhemaybe X  putnoworhereafterincuttingtheoverhangingbranchesorfoliage.Id.Thus,Granberryleftopen D! thepossibilityoftheinjuredlandownerrecoveringdamages,oratleastexpenses,afterthelandowner 0"  availedhimselftoselfhelpremedies.ThisaspectofGranberrywasnotmentionedbytheCourtof #l! Appealsinthepresentcase,therebyleavingtheimpressionthatalandownerhasnoremedyother $X" thanselfhelp,evenwhentheencroachingvegetationcausesactualharmtotheneighboringproperty. $D #   Ӏ %0!$ H  Theplaintiffherearguesthat(1)Granberrydidnotexpresslyforeclosethepossibilityofa &"% nuisanceaction;(2)Granberryisdistinguishablefromthiscasebecauseitinvolvedahedgerow '#& whichcouldeasilybecontrolledbypruning,asopposedtolargetreestoweringoveradjoining (#' propertywiththepotentialforcausingseriousinjury;(3)Granberrydidnotinvolvedamagecaused )$(  byundergroundroots;and(4)casesdecidedinotherjurisdictionssinceGranberryhaveallowed |*%) nuisanceclaimsfortheremovalofencroachingvegetationand,whereappropriate,fordamages.The  thrustoftheplaintiffspositionisthatthedefendantstreesconstituteanuisance.     ThedefendantrespondsthatunderGranberrytheplaintiffssoleremedyisselfhelpand, t therefore,theplaintiffcannotrecoverforanyharmcausedbythedefendantstrees.Thedefendant ` assertsthatselfhelpisasufficientremedybecausetheplaintiffisinthebestpositiontoprevent L  harmtoherpropertybyexercisingselfhelp.Thedefendantalsoarguesthat#XXXXч;#XXXXallowingacauseof 8  actioneverytimeatreeorplantencroachesuponanotherslandwouldspawninnumerableand $ t possiblytriviallawsuits.Thedefendantfurtherarguesthatitstreesshouldnotberegardedasa  ` nuisancebecausethetreesareliving,healthytreesdoingwhatnaturecompelsthemtodoproduce  L  branchesandarootsystem.Finally,thedefendantclaimsthatsincetheplaintiffexperienced  8  problemswiththetreesformanyyearsbeforenotifyingHarrisofthatfact,sheshouldbeestopped $  fromnowassertingherrights. #  2      ׀#XXXXшN#XXXX   0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#II.ApproachesTakeninOtherJurisdictions#XXXXѹQ#XXXX  (# (#   WebeginouranalysisofthiscasebyobservingthatsinceGranberry#XXXXхR#XXXXԀwasdecidedin1949, \ statesconsideringthequestionofencroachingvegetationhavetakenanumberofdifferent H approaches.Thecourtsuniformlyholdthatalandownerhasaremedyofselfhelp,meaningthatthe 4 landownerhastherighttocutencroachingbranches,roots,andothergrowthtothepropertyline,but  p maynotentertheadjoiningpropertytochopdownthetreeorplantorcutbackgrowthwithoutthe  \ adjoiningproperty#XXXX=S#XXXXownersconsent.SeeRobertRoy,Annotation,EncroachmentofTrees, H Shrubbery,orOtherVegetationAcrossBoundaryLine,65A.L.R.4th603(1988).Thus, 4 jurisdictionsthathaveconsideredthematter,includingTennessee,permitthelandownerwhose   propertyisencroachedbyoverhangingbranchesandrootstotrimthemtotheextentofthe   encroachment.8  #  3      ׀Somestatesapplythisruleeveniftheencroachinglimbsandrootsarenotcausing  anyharmtotheadjoiningproperty.See,e.g.,Jonesv.Wagner,624A.2d166,16869(Pa.Super.  Ct.1993).Thesecourtsreasonthat#XXXXћU#XXXXfrom ancienttimesithasbeentheacceptedrulethata  landownerhastheexclusiverighttopossessanduseallofthelandownersproperty,includingthe  airspaceabovetheground,andthereforetheredressableharmcausedbyencroachingtreesisthat t ofthetrespassontotheneighboringproperty,notphysicaldamagedonetotheneighboring#XXXXY#XXXXԀland. ` Id.at169.  L    Althoughthejurisdictionsuniformlyagreethatselfhelpisanappropriateremedy,theyare $ t dividedontheavailabilityofanyremedybeyondselfhelp.Insomestates,forexample,harmcaused  ` byencroachingbranchesandrootsisnotactionableatall,soselfhelpisthelandownersexclusive  L  remedy.2( #  4      ׀#XXXXZ#XXXXԀCourtsadoptingthisapproach,calledthe Massachusettsrule,expresstheconcernthat  8   tograntalandowneracauseofactioneverytimetreebranches,leaves,vines,shrubs,etc.,encroach $  uponorfallonhispropertyfromhisneighborsproperty,mightwellspawninnumerableand   vexatiouslawsuits.Melnickv.C.S.X.Corp.,540A.2d1133,1137(Md.1988).TheMassachusetts   rule,however,#XXXXa]#XXXXhasbeencriticized#XXXXѝ_#XXXXԀasbeingoutdated,havingevolvedinanearliertimewhenlandwas   mostlyunsettledandpeoplelivedpredominatelyinruralsettings.SeeChandlerv.Larson,500   N.E.2d584,587 (Ill.Ct.App.1986). d  #  5      ׀TheMassachusettsrule#XXXX_#XXXXԀhasalsobeencriticizedasfostering p a lawofthejunglementalitybecauseselfhelpeffectivelyreplacesthelawoforderlyjudicial \ processastheonlywaytoadjusttherightsandresponsibilitiesofdisputingneighbors.Asonecourt H hasobserved, inthelongrunneighborhoodquarrelsandpettylitigationwillbeminimizedrather 4 thanmagnifiedbyarulethatdoesnotrequireanexerciseofselfhelpbeforepermittinganaction  p toenforcelegalrights.Ludwigv.Creswald,Inc.,7Pa.D.&C.2d461,464(1956).#XXXXѢa#XXXXFinally,some  \ courtshavequestionedwhethertheMassachusettsrule#XXXXnd#XXXXԀisfairgiventhatitdeprivesdeserving H plaintiffsofanymeaningfulredresswhentheirpropertyisdamaged. SeeWhitesellv.Houlton,632 4 P.2d1077,1079(Haw.Ct.App.1981)#XXXXe#XXXX. AstrictapplicationoftheMassachusettsrule#XXXX=f#XXXXԀtothepresent   case,forexample,wouldleavetheplaintiffwithnoremedyfortheholeinherrooforforbeing  unabletousetheonlybathroominherhousefortwoyears.   Ѐ  Otherjurisdictionshaveadoptedwhatiscommonlycalledthe Restatementrule,which  imposesanobligationuponalandownertocontrolthelandownersencroachingvegetationwhen  thevegetationis artificial(i.e.,plantedormaintainedbyaperson),butnotwhentheencroaching  vegetationis natural.SeeRestatement(Second)ofTorts839,840(1979). #  6      ׀Althoughafew t statesfollowtheRestatementrule,!d #  7      ׀mosthaverejecteditbecausethedistinctionbetweenartificial ` andnaturalvegetationisunworkablegiventheinherentdifficultyofascertainingtheoriginofa L  particulartreeorplant.SeeHarveyv.Hansen,445A.2d1228,1231(Pa.Super.Ct.1982) 8  (distinguishingbetweenartificialandnaturalvegetationis arbitraryatbest).#XXXXѶf#XXXXԀAsonecourthas $ t observed, itwouldoftenbedifficulttoascertainwhetheratreeofnaturalgrowthmightnotbein  ` parttheresultofhumanactivity,suchascultivating,fertilizing,trimming,etc.Thedistinction  L  betweenpurelynaturalconditionsandconditionswhichinsomedegreearetheresultofmans  8  activity...cannotreasonablybemade....Sterling,75A.2dat147.Finally,distinguishing $  betweenartificialandnaturalvegetation#XXXX]l#XXXXleadstotheanomalyofimposingliabilityupononewho   improvesandmaintainshisproperty,whileprecludingliabilityofanadjacentlandownerwhoallows   thenaturalconditionofhispropertyto runwild.Harvey,445A.2dat1231#XXXXn#XXXX.     Anotherapproachisthe Virginiarule,whichprovidesthattheinjuredlandownerislimited p toselfhelpunlesstheencroachingtreeorplantis noxiousandcausesactualharmtothe \ neighboringproperty.#XXXX;p#XXXXԀSee,e.g.,CannonDunn,700P.2d502,504(Ariz.Ct.App.1985);Smithv. H Holt,5S.E.2d492,495(Va.1939).Confusionexistsoverwhetheratreeorplantisnoxiousmerely 4 becauseitcausesinjury,orwhetheritmustbeinherentlyinjuriousorpoisonous.Melnick,540A.2d  p at1137.#XXXXѬq#XXXXԀFewjurisdictionsfollowtheVirginiarulebecauseoftheinherent difficultyofdetermining  \ exactlywhatisanoxioustreeorplant.Id.#XXXXfs#XXXX H   Severaljurisdictionshaveadoptedthe Hawaiirule,whichholdsthatlivingtreesandplants   areordinarilynotnuisances,butcanbecomesowhentheycauseactualharmorposeanimminent   dangerofactualharmtoadjoiningproperty. #  8      ׀#XXXXXt#XXXXUnderthisapproach, whenoverhangingbranchesor  protrudingrootsactuallycause,orthereisimminentdangerofthemcausing,[substantial]harmto  propertyotherthanplantlife,inwaysotherthanbycastingshadeordroppingleaves,flowers,or  fruit,thedamagedorimminentlyendangeredneighbormayrequiretheownerofthetreetopayfor l thedamagesandtocutbacktheendangeringbranchesorroots,andifsuchisnotdonewithina  reasonabletime,the...neighbormaycausethecutbacktobedoneatthetreeownersexpense.  Whitesellv.Houlton,632P.2d1077,1079(Haw.Ct.App.1981)#XXXX0v#XXXX.However,theinjuredlandowner   mayalways,athisownexpense,cutawayonlytohispropertylineaboveandbelowthesurfaceof t thegroundanypartoftheadjoininglandownerstreeorotherplantlifethatencroachuponthe ` property.Id.TheHawaiiapproachthusaddressesthefloodoflitigationconcernexpressedbysome L  courtsoverthenaturalprocessesandcyclesoftrees,roots,andothervegetation,byimposinga 8  requirementofactualharmorimminentdangerofactualharmtotheadjoiningproperty.Hence,the $ t merefactthattreelimbsorrootsextendtoanotherspropertydoesnotbyitselfconstitutean  ` actionablenuisance.Moreover,theHawaiiruledoesnotrelyondistinctionsmadebythe  L  RestatementandVirginiarulesthathavebeendescribedvariouslyas unworkable, vague,  8   difficulttoapply,and largelyarbitrary.Melnick,540A.2dat1138.Atthe#XXXXWy#XXXXsametime,therule $  providesameaningfulremedyindeservingcases,i.e.,thoseinvolvingactualharmorimminent   dangerofactualharm.Therulehasbeendescribedas realisticandfairbecausethe ownerofthe   treestrunkistheownerofthetree,[andtherefore]hebearssomeresponsibilityfortherestofthe   tree....Whitesell,632P.2dat1079.#XXXX~#XXXXԀ   Ѐ p   Finally,atleastonecourthasgonesofarastopermittheadjoininglandownertocompelthe \ ownerofatreetoremoveittotheextentoftheencroachment,plusrecoverdamages,including H expensesincurredinthecourseofexercisingaselfhelpremedy,intheabsenceofanyactualharm 4 totheproperty.Jones,624A.2dat171. Underthisview,alandowner mayavailhimselfofevery  p availableremedialavenue,selfhelporasuitfordamagesorboth,intheabsenceofharmor ` potentialharmtothepropertyinorderto protecttheincidentsoflandownershipand freelyenjoy L unencumberedandexclusiveuseofpropertyherightfullypossesses.Id. Anythingless...isa 8 travesty.Id.Asweseeit,however,thisapproachisproblematicbecausenoactualharmordanger $ ofharmtothepropertyisrequiredtobringsuit.Permittingacauseofactioneverytimeatreeor  plantsomuchasdropsaleaforcastsshadeuponanothersland#XXXX#XXXX couldwellsubjectlandownersto  the annoyance,andthepublictotheburden,ofactionsatlaw,whichwouldbelikelytobe  innumerableand,inmanyinstances,purelyvexatious.Granberry,216S.W.2d723.#XXXX<#XXXXԀ  #XXXXщ#XXXXԀ \  Ѐ0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#III.H!(#(# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#A.TheRuleWeAdopt #p!(#(# #XXXX#XXXX  Aftercarefullyconsideringthevariousapproachesofotherjurisdictionsandourown $H # decisioninGranberry#XXXXT#XXXX,wehavedecidedtojointhegrowingnumberofstatesthathaveadoptedthe %4!$ Hawaiiapproach.Wedosoforseveralreasons.First,theHawaiiapproach#XXXX'#XXXXԀstrikesanappropriate & "% balancebetweenthecompetingrightsofadjacentpropertyowners.Asstatedbyonecourt, [t]his ' #& approachvoicesarationalandfairsolution,permittingalandownertogrowandnurturetreesand (#' otherplantsonhisland,balancedagainstthecorrelativedutyofalandownertoensurethattheuse )$( ofhispropertydoesnotmateriallyharmhisneighbor.Abbinett,703P.2dat181.Weagreethat *%) sincethe ownerofthetreestrunkistheownerofthetree,he[should]bearsomeresponsibilityfor l+&* therestofthetree.Whitesell,632P.2dat1079.#XXXX#XXXXԀ#XXXX-#XXXXSecond,wearepersuadedthattheHawaii  approach#XXXXr#XXXXԀisstringentenoughtodiscouragetrivialsuits,butnotsorestrictivethatitprecludesa  recoverywhereoneiswarranted#XXXX#XXXX.Althoughsomecourtsexpresstheconcernofspawningnumerous  lawsuits,wenotethatstateswhichdonotlimitaplaintiffsremedytoselfhelphaveapparentlynot t sufferedanysuchfloodoflitigation.Imposingarequirementofactualharmorimminentdangerof ` actualharmtotheadjoiningproperty#XXXXˎ#XXXXԀisasufficientandappropriategatekeepingmechanism.Third, L  weagreewiththenotionthatlimitingaplaintiffsremedytoselfhelpencourages#XXXX}#XXXXa lawofthe 8  junglementalitybecauseselfhelpreplacesthelawoforderlyjudicialprocessastheexclusiveway $ t toadjusttherightsandresponsibilitiesofdisputingneighbors.#XXXXj#XXXXItseemsthatmoreharmthangood  ` cancomefromarulethatencouragesangryneighborstotakemattersintotheirownhands.Fourth,  L  theHawaii#XXXXё#XXXXԀrule#XXXXы#XXXXԀdoesnotdependupondifficulttoapply#XXXXғ#XXXXԀorunworkabledistinctions#XXXX<#XXXX,amajor  8  disadvantageoftheRestatementandVirginiaapproaches.Wedonotwishtoplaceourcourtsinthe $  difficult,andsometimesimpossible,positionofhavingtoascertaintheoriginofaparticulartreeor   othervegetation.Norshouldlandownerswhoallowtheirpropertytorunwildbeshieldedfrom   liabilitywhilethosewhomaintainandimprovetheirlandbesubjecttoliability.Thelawshouldnot   sanctionsuchananomaly.Fifth,theHawaiiapproach#XXXXљ#XXXXԀ#XXXX#XXXXisconsistentwiththeprincipleofselfhelp   embracedinGranberry.TheruleisalsoconsistentwithGranberry#XXXXS#XXXXsrecognitionthatalandowner p mayrecoverthe expensetowhichhemaybeputnoworhereafter incuttingtheoverhanging \ branchesorfoliage,assumingtheencroachingvegetationconstitutesanuisance.Granberry,216 H S.W.2dat723.#XXXX"#XXXXԀFinally,theruleweadopttoday#XXXXѤ#XXXXԀisinkeepingwiththeaimofthelawtoprovidea 4 remedytothosewhoareharmedasaresultofanotherstortiousconduct.SeeCamperv.Minor,915  p S.W.2d437,441(Tenn.1996).#XXXX#XXXX  \   Accordingly,weholdthatencroachingtreesandplantsarenotnuisancesmerelybecausethey 4 castshade,dropleaves,flowers,orfruit,orjustbecausetheyhappentoencroachuponadjoining   propertyeitheraboveorbelowtheground.However,encroachingtreesandplants#XXXX6#XXXXԀmayberegarded   asanuisancewhentheycauseactualharmorposeanimminentdangerofactualharmtoadjoining  property.Ifso,theownerofthetreeorplantmaybeheldresponsibleforharmcausedbyit,andmay  alsoberequiredtocutbacktheencroachingbranchesorroots,assumingtheencroachingvegetation  constitutesanuisance.Wedonot,however,alterexistingTennesseelawthattheadjoining l landowner#XXXXӜ#XXXXԀmay,athisownexpense,cutawaytheencroachingvegetationtothepropertyline X  whetherornottheencroachingvegetation#XXXX#XXXXԀconstitutesanuisanceorisotherwisecausingharmor D! possibleharmtotheadjoiningproperty#XXXX#XXXX.Thus,thelawofselfhelpremainsintactasithassince 0"  1949whenGranberry#XXXXѤ#XXXXԀwasdecided#XXXXP#XXXX. #  9      ׀ #l! Ї  #XXXXў#XXXX@ B.PrivateNuisance  #XXXXW#  Asindicatedabove,theplaintiffassertsXXXXthatthedefendantstreesconstituteaprivate  nuisance.#XXXX #ԀTennesseecourtshavedefinedaprivatenuisanceXXXXas anythingwhichannoysordisturbs t thefreeuseofonesproperty,orwhichrendersitsordinaryuseorphysicaloccupation ` uncomfortable...[and]extendstoeverythingthatendangerslifeorhealth,givesoffensetothe L  senses,violatesthelawsofdecency,orobstructsthereasonableandcomfortableuseofproperty. 8  Patev.CityofMartin,614S.W.2d46,47(Tenn.1981).1 #  10      ׀#XXXXң#ԀDependingonthesurroundings,activities $ t thatconstituteanuisanceinonecontextmaynotconstituteanuisanceinanother.Whethera  ` particularactivityoruseofpropertyamountstoanunreasonableinvasionofanotherslegally  L  protectableinterestsdependsonthecircumstancesofeachcase,suchasthecharacterofthe  8  surroundings,thenature,utility,andsocialvalueoftheuse,andthenatureandextentoftheharm $  involved.Id.     Tennesseesdefinitionofprivatenuisanceistypicalofhowmoststateshavedefinedthetort,   bothnowandinthepast.SeeRestatement(Second)ofTorts%X XXX#XX X%XQ#Ԁ821D(1979).Indeed,actionsbased   ontheunreasonableinterferencewithanothersinterestintheprivateuseandenjoymentofproperty p datebacktothetwelfthcenturyinEngland.Id.atcmt.a., #  11      ׀Nuisancelawhassincedevelopedover \ thecenturiestothepointwhereanuisancemaynowconsistofaphysicalconditiononthelanditself H (i.e.,vibrations,pollution,orflooding),causediscomfortorinconveniencetotheoccupantsofthe 4 property(i.e.,odors,dust,smoke,noise),orconsistofaconditiononadjoiningpropertywhich  p impairstheoccupierstranquility(i.e.,conductinganunlawfulbusinessorkeepingdiseased  \ animals).W.PageKeeton,ProsserandKeetonontheLawofTorts61920(5thed.1984).So long H astheinterferenceissubstantialandunreasonable,suchaswouldbeoffensiveorinconvenientto 4 thenormalperson,virtuallyanydisturbanceoftheenjoymentofthepropertymayamounttoa   nuisance.Id.at620.Thus,nuisancedoesnotdescribeadefendantsconduct,butatypeofharm   sufferedbytheplaintiff.SeeZollingerv.Carter,837S.W.2d613,615(Tenn.Ct.App.1992).    Apartywhohasbeensubjectedtoaprivatenuisancemaybeentitledtoseveraltypesof  remedies.Sinceatleastthemid1800s,courtsinTennesseehavehadtheauthoritytoorderthe l nuisanceabated.Tenn.CodeAnn.%X XXX#XX X%X#Ԁ293114.Thus,aplaintiffmaybeentitledtoinjunctiverelief,  especiallywherethenuisanceislikelytocontinue.XXXXPate,614S.W.2dat48.#XXXX]#Further,incases  involvingatemporaryprivatenuisance,whichisonethatcanbecorrected,damagesmaybeawarded  forthecostofrestoringthepropertytoitsprenuisancecondition,aswellasdamagesfor t inconvenience,emotionaldistress,andinjurytotheuseandenjoymentoftheproperty.Pryorv. ` Willoughby,36S.W.3d829,831(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).Thetypicalwayofmeasuringinjurytothe L  useandenjoymentofthepropertyisthedecreaseinrentalvalueofthepropertywhilethenuisance 8  existed.Id.;seealsoXXXXPate,614S.W.2dat48(notingthatthemeasureofdamagesisthe injuryto $ t thevalueoftheuseandenjoymentoftheproperty,whichisusuallyshownbyevidenceoftheextent  ` thattherentalvalueofthepropertyisdiminishedbythenuisance).Accordingly,courtsprovide  L  anappropriateremedyintheformofeitherdamagesorinjunctiverelieforboth.#XXXX^#XXXX  8  @C.ApplicationtothisCase0   (#(#   #XXXXO#XXXX  Applyingtheprincipleswehaveadoptedtothepresentcase,itisclearthatthedefendants   treessatisfyTennesseesdefinitionofaprivatenuisance,i.e., anythingwhichannoysordisturbs p thefreeuseofonesproperty,orwhichrendersitsordinaryuseorphysicaloccupation \ uncomfortable...[and]extendstoeverythingthatendangerslifeorhealth,givesoffensetothe H senses,violatesthelawsofdecency,orobstructsthereasonableandcomfortableuseofproperty. 4 Pate,614S.W.2dat47#XXXX#XXXX.Therecordrevealsthatthedefendantstrees#XXXXй#XXXXԀcausedaholeintheplaintiffs  p roof.#XXXXE#XXXXWaterfromthatholeruinedtheplaintiffsceilingsandthestoveinherkitchen.#XXXXʺ#XXXXԀAlso,itis  \ uncontrovertedthattheplaintiffhassevereplumbingproblemsasaresultofencroachingroots.The H plaintiffhasnotbeenabletouseherbathroomsinkortubintwoyears.Norcansheflushhertoilet. 4 Shemustgotoaneighborshousetousetherestroom.#XXXXj#XXXXRawsewagebubblesupintoherbathtub.   Herbathroomfloorhasbeenreplacedbecausehertoiletcontinuallybacksup,spillingwateronto   herfloor.#XXXX#XXXXԀNeighborshavecomplainedtoheraboutthefoulsmellofsewagecomingfromher  property.#XXXX#XXXXԀWhenaskedabouttheconditionofherhome,theplaintiffreplied, everythingisall  messedup.Icantbathe.Icantcook.Idontwantpeoplecomingtomyhousebecauseithasodors  init,fleas,flies,bugs.Ithasjustbeenawfulforme.#XXXXɾ#XXXXԀThesecircumstanceshaveunderstandably l takenatollontheplaintiff.Sheisunderthecareofapsychiatristand#XXXX=#XXXXtakesmedicationfor X  emotionalproblems.Shetestifiedthatshemayhavetomoveoutofherhouse#XXXX#XXXXԀbecauseshe just D! canttaketoomuchmore.#XXXX#XXXXԀ#XXXXL#XXXXԀClearly,thedefendantsencroachingtreeshaveadverselyaffectedthe 0"  plaintiffsreasonableandordinaryuseandoccupationofherhome,nottomentionposinghazards #l! totheplaintiffshealthandsafety.#XXXXя#XXXXԀAccordingly,werejectthedefendantsassertionthatitstreesdo $X" notconstituteanuisance. $D #   #XXXX#XXXXԀ %0!$   Conclusion  &"%     Aftercarefullyconsideringtherecordandrelevantauthorities,weconcludethatthelower (#' courtserredinfindingthattheplaintiffssoleremedywasselfhelp.Encroachingtreesandplants )$( arenotnuisancesmerelybecausetheycastshade,dropleaves,flowers,orfruit,orjustbecausethey |*%) happentoencroachuponadjoiningpropertyeitheraboveorbelowtheground.However, h+&* encroachingtreesandplants#XXXXѬ#XXXXԀmayberegardedasanuisancewhentheycauseactualharmorposean  imminentdangerofactualharmtoadjoiningproperty.Ifso,theownerofthetreeorplantmaybe  heldresponsibleforharmcausedbyit,andmayalsoberequiredtocutbacktheencroaching  branchesorroots,assumingtheencroachingvegetationconstitutesanuisance.#XXXXF#XXXXԀ#XXXX#XXXXԀWedonot,however, t alterexistingTennesseelawthattheadjoininglandowner#XXXX\#XXXXԀmay,athisownexpense,cutawaythe ` encroachingvegetationtothepropertylinewhetherornottheencroachingvegetation#XXXX#XXXXԀconstitutesa L  nuisanceorisotherwisecausingharmorpossibleharmtotheadjoiningproperty#XXXX#XXXX.#XXXXч#XXXXԀWefurtherfind 8  thattherecordinthiscaseissufficienttoestablishliabilityfornuisance.#XXXX#XXXXԀAccordingly,thejudgment $ t oftheCourtofAppealsaffirmingthetrialcourtsdismissalofthecaseisreversed.Thecaseis  ` remandedtothetrialcourtforadeterminationofdamagesandotherappropriaterelief,suchas  L  orderingthenuisanceabated(i.e.,orderthetreesremoved)." #  12      ׀#XXXXс#XXXXԀCostsofthisappealaretaxedtothe  8  defendant,W.J.Curry&Sons#XXXXu#XXXX,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. $    __ @  @`  @  @  @h  @  @ ___________________________________ 4  @  @`  @  @  @h  @  @ FRANKF.DROWOTA,III,CHIEFJUSTICE#XXXX#