In Western etc. Co. v. Knickerbocker (1894) 103 Cal. 111, the California Supreme Court concluded that if the Legislature intended the law to apply to a structure built entirely on the landowner's property, it was unconstitutional because it was not "competent for the legislature to vest in a landowner the power to prevent his neighbor from building such structure as he pleases, provided it is not a nuisance, and it is not such merely because it obstructs the passage of light and air." ( Id. at p. 115.) Accordingly, to render the law constitutional, the court construed it as applying only to fences built on the boundary line and thus resting partly on the land of the adjoining owner. ( Id. at p. 116.) There, the court wrote: "Merely owning the adjoining lot does not give the proprietor an easement over the property of another for the passage of light and air. Nor is it competent for the legislature to vest in such proprietor the power to prevent his neighbor from building such structure as he pleases, provided it is not a nuisance, and it is not such merely because it obstructs the passage of light and air." ( Id. at p. 115.)