This case concerned a cherry tree growing on the defender`s land which had extended its roots into the pursuer`s land. Although the tree was removed, its presence close to the wall had caused severe cracking in the brickwork. The defender erected a fence close to and along the length of the wall.The pursuer averred that substantial sections of the foundation of the wall had been cut away to receive the fence posts thus severly damaging the foundations and destabilising the wall. The pursuer also averred that repair and maintenance of the wall had been rendered more difficult and expensive by the presence of the fence; and that the wall was common property and that such abnormal and extraordinary use as the defender had made of it was wrongful. It was held that the wall was mutual property with each proprietor owning the half on their respective side and having a common interest in the whole wall, and that a proprietor could make such alterations as he chose to his own part of the pro