Irvin v. Smith

Bell, Justice.

Even if, as contended by the plaintiff, the defendant Booker Smith, who installed the hydraulic uplift, is limited in his right of removal to the same extent as the original lessee, J. D. Thomason Inc., would have been, and if the consent of the latter could be of no effect toward placing the transaction without the control of the contract, the judge did not err in refusing an injunction. As to the right of removal, the contract provided only that “all improvements erected on said land” should become the property of the lessor, and did not determine such right as to property of…