[Sec. 272

The right of a tenant to remove fixtures may be extended or restricted by agreement between him and the land lord, and it may likewise be affected by a local custom.44

- (f) Loss of right of removal. A question has frequently arisen as to the time at which the right to remove trade, ornamental, or agricultural fixtures, must be exercised, and it is difficult to extract a uniform rule from the decisions in this regard. In some decisions it is stated that the removal must be made during the term,45 in some, that the right expires with the tenancy,46 and in some, that it may be exercised a "reasonable time" after the expiration of the term.47 It has occasionally been stated that the tenant's right of removal continues "during his original term, and during such further period of possession by him as he holds the premises under a right still to consider himself as tenant,"48 or during what may, for this purpose,

Campbell, 9 Colo. App. 38. 47 Pac. 465; Beers v. St. John, 16 Conn. 322; Rotl v. Collins, 109 Iowa, 501, 80 N. W. 543.

44. See 2 Tiffany Landlord & Ten. Sec. 244; Realty Dock & Improvement Corp. v. Andert-on, 174 Cal. 672, 164 Pac. 4; Shaleen v. Central Coal & Coke Co., 127 Ark. 397, 192 S. W. 275; Shelton v. Jones. -, Okla. -, 167 Pac. 456.

45. Dudley v. Warde, Ambl. 113; Lyde v. Russell, 1 Barn. & Adol. 394; Smith v. Moore, 26 111. 392; Thomas v. Crout, 5 Bush

(Ky.) 37; Bodwell Water Power Co. v. Old Town Elec. Co. 96 Me. 117. 51 Atl. 802; Carlin v. Ritter, 68 Md. 478, 13 Atl. 370, 6 Am. St. Rep. 467, 16 Atl. 301; Watriss v. Firs: Nat. Bank, 124 Mass. 571, 26 Am. Rep. 694; Natural Autoforce Ventilator Co. v. Winslow, 215 Mass. 462, 102 N. E. 705; Stokoe v. Upton, 40 Mich. 581, 29 Am. Rep. 560; Tate v. Black-burne, 48 Miss. 1; Beck with v. Boyce, 9 Mo. 560; Conner v. Coffin, 22 N. H. 538; Donnelly v. Frick & Lindsay Co., 207 Pa. 597, 57 Atl. 60.

46. Griffin v. Ransdell, 71 Ind. 440; Walsh v. Sichler, 20 Mo. App. 374; Stevens v. Burnham, 62 Neb. 672, 87 N. W. 546.

47. Berger v. Hoerner. 36 111. App. 360; Burk v. Hollis, 98 Mass. 55; Shellar v. Shivers, 171 Pi. 569, 33 Atl. 95; Preston v. Briggs, 16 Vt. 124; Gartland v. Hickman, 56 W. Va. 75, 67 L. R. A. 694, 49 S. E. 14.

48. Weeton v. Woodcock, 7 Mees. & W. 14; Merritt v. Judd,

"be considered as an excrescence on the term,"49 or "during his rightful continuance in possession."50 What is the exact meaning of some of these statements it is difficult to say, but a number of cases recognize the right of the tenant to remove the fixtures even alter- the term, provided he does so before he relinquishes posses-sion of the land, it being said in some that he may make the removal before such relinquishment of possession,51 and in others that he must do so.52

The decisions or dicta to the effect that a tenant holding over has the right of removal, and that he loses the right by giving up possession of the premises, are usually in terms based on the theory that by yield ing possession he indicates an intention to abandon the fixtures, and that no presumption of such an intention arises so long as he continues his possession.53 But,

14 Cal. 59; Morey v. Hoyt, 62 Conn. 542, 19 L. R. A. 611, 26 Atl. 127; Youngblood v. Eubank, 6S Ga. 630; Erickson v. Jones, 37 Minn. 459, 35 N. W. 267; Lough-ran v. Ross, 45 N. Y. 792, 6 Am. Rep. 173.

49. Mackintosh v. Trotter, 3 Mees. & W. 184; Wright v. Mac-Dt.nnell, 88 Tex. 140, 30 S. W. 907.

50. Allen v. Kennedy, 40 Ind. 142; Hedderich v. Smith, 10? Ind. 203, 5°, Am. Pep. 509, 2 N. E. 315.

51. Brown v. Reno Elec. Light & Power Co., 55 Fed. 229; Wat-riss v. First Nat. Bank of Cambridge, 124 Mass. 571, 26 Am. Rep. 694; Fenimore v. White, 78 Neb. 520, 111 N. W. 204; Lewis v. Ocean Nav. & Pier Co., 125 N. Y. 341, 26 N. E. 301; State v. White-ner, 93 N. C. 590.

52. Kutter v. Smith, 2 Wall (U. S.) 491, 17 L. Ed. 830; Young-blood v. Eubank, 68 Ga. 630;

Bush v. Havird, 12 Idaho 352, 86 Pac. 529; Cromie v. Hoover, 40 Ind. 49; Dostal v. McCaddon, 35 Iowa, 318; Dingley v. Buffum, 57 Me. 381; Bliss v. Whitney, 9 Allen (Mass.) 114, 85 Am. Dec. 745; Kerr v. Kingsbury, 39 Mich. 150, 33 Am. Rep. 362; Willams v. Lane, 62 Mo. App. 66; Friedland-er v. Ryder, 30 Neb. 783, 9 L. R. A. 700, 47 N .W. 83; Hill v. Se-wald, 53 Pa. 271, 91 Am. Dec. 209; Sweet v. Myers, 3 S. D. 324. 53 N. W. 187; Donahue v. Hardman Estate, 91 Wash. 125, 157 Pac. 478; Childs v. Hurd, 32 W. Va. 66, 9 S. E. 362; Phelps v. Ayers, 142 Wis. 442, 125 N. W. 919

53. See Youngblood v. Eubank, 68 Ga. 63; Cromie v. Hoover, 40 Ind. 49; Hedderich v. Smith, 103 Ind 203, 53 Am. Rep. 509, 2 N. E. 315; Beckwith v. Boyce, !) Mo. 560; Lewis v. Ocean Nav. &. Pier Co., 125 N. Y. 341, 26 N. E.

301; Loughran v. Ross, 45 N. Y. 792, 6 Am. Rep. 173.

54. See per Kindersley, V. C-, in Gibson v. Hammersmith & City R. Co., 2 Drew. & S. 603, 32 Law J. Ch. 337.

55. See Morey v. Hoyt, 62 Conn. 542, 19 L. R. A. 611, 26 Atl. 127; Talbot v. Whipple, 96 Mass. (14 Allen) 177; Noyes v. Gaglon, 225 Mass 580, 114 N. E. 949; Don-newald v. Turner Real Estate Co., 44 Mo. App. 350; Dame v. Dame, 38 N. H. 429, 75 Am. Dec. 195; Holmes v Tremper, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 29, 11 Am. Dec. 238; Western North Carolina R. Co. -. Deal, 90 N. C. 110; Lawrence v. Kemp, S

N. Y. Super. Ct. (1 Duer) 363; Wansbrough v. Maton, 4 Adol. & E. 884; Davis v. Jones, 2 Barn. & Ald. 165.

56. See ante, this section, note 36.

57. Crandall Inv. Co. v. Ulyatt, 40 Colo. 35, 90 Pac. 591; Mason v Fenn, 13 111. 525; Ray v. Young, 160 Iowa, 613, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 947, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 258, 142 N. W. 393; Finney's Trustees v. City of St. Louis 39 Mo. 178; Ferguson v. O'Brien, 76 N. H. 192, 81 Atl. 479; Donelly v. Frick & Lindsay Co., 207 Pa. 597, 57 Atl. 60; Wright v. Mac-Donnell, 88 Tex. 140. 30 S. W

Sec. 272]

Rights of Enjoyment.

If the tenancy is of uncertain duration, such as a tenancy at will, or if it is subject to termination on;a contingency, the tenant has a "reasonable time" after its termination within which to remove the fixtures, provided at least the termination is not the result of his own voluntary act,58 and provided further, it seems, he has not relinquished possession.59It has been questioned whether this principle would apply to,a tenancy at will, when by statute the tenant is entitled to a reasonable notice to terminate,'60 and there are cases somewhat adverse to its application in favor of a tenant under a lease made by a life tenant, when the leasehold is terminated by the death of the lessor.61