000			01556cab a2200241 4500
001			ABS39913
008			090401t1988 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u20015
041			_aeng
245			_aThom v Hetherington
260			_c1988
350			_a0
490			_aScots Law Times _v(1988) SLT 724-728(5)
520			_aThis 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
650			_aBOUNDARY WALLS
650			_aDAMAGE
650			_aMUTUAL WALLS
650			_aSCOTLAND
650			_aTREE ROOTS
690			_aPROPERTY LAW AND PRACTICE-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c13411 _d13411