Goodwin v. Perkins

<p>Mine upon Homestead — Improvements under Oral Contract — Refusal to Sign Agreed Writing — Recovery of Improvements — Findings — Conflicting Evidence. — Mining machinery and other-improvements erected by the plaintiffs upon a mine situated upon the homestead of the defendants, under an oral contract therefor, and for possession and an interest in the mine, which it was agreed should be written and executed by the parties, but which, when drafted by the plaintiffs, and orally assented to as correct by the defendants, who agreed to sign it, they finally refused to sign, and thereupon ousted the plaintiffs, after the improvements were completed as agreed, may be recovered by the plaintiffs, under findings, upon substantially conflicting evidence of such facts alleged in the-complaint, which showed that the plaintiffs, as tenants at will under the oral contract, were entitled to remove the improvements, and. to have possession for that purpose, and that'the improvements were not so constructed as to be an integral part of the mine, and could be removed without injury to the realty.</p> <p>Id.—Recovery of Improvements as Personal Property—Possession —Tenancy at Will. — The machinery and other improvements,. under the facts of the case, may be recovered as personal property, upon demand therefor, and refusal to deliver the same without temporary possession of the premises, and without reference to any tenancy at will upon the homestead premises, which could be created only as provided by law, by a properly acknowledged instru■snent. - [Per Temple, J., specially concurring.]</p>