This court decision is one where William Hungerford (SH168) argued the case on behalf of the plaintiff.
The case involved a tree that stands on the plaintiff's land, and about four feet from the line, dividing his land from that of the defendant. A part of the branches overhang, and a portion of the roots extend into, the defendant's land. he defendant gathered the pears growing on the branches which overhung his land, and converted them to his own use, claiming a title thereto.
The court ruled that, if these branches were a nuisance to the defendant's land, he had clearly a right to treat them as such, and as such, to remove them. But he as clearly had no right to convert either the branches or the fruit to his own use.
Lyman v. Hale, 11 Conn. 177, 185 (Conn. 1836)