Slingluff v. Franklin Davis Nurseries, Inc.

Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. For the purposes of the demurrer to the bill of complaint in this case it is admitted that the plaintiff company, which ³⁰³ is engaged in the business of growing and selling fruit trees,' sold and conveyed to the defendant a tract of land on which were young apple and pear trees- intended, for s-ale In- the plaintiff’s customers!, that by special agreement the¡ right- to remove the trees was- reserved to- the plaintiff, provided the removal should bo completed not later than tho Spring of 1919, that on February 17, 1919, the defendant wrote the plaintiff a letter to the effect that if the trees could not be removed by April 1, an arrangement might be made to have them remain on the land another year, to- which tho plaintiff-replied, by letter dated February 19th, that the trees would all be removed prior to April 1st, that on February 27th the plaintiff was notified by the defendant not to remove any more of the trees and thereafter continued to prohibit their removal until the filing of the bill and tho issuance of the. preliminary injunction on March 8th, that the defendant wrote the plaintiff on March 6th stating’ that ho would lease the land to some other party if the plaintiff did not indicate a desire to lease it by March 10th, and that the prompt and careful transplanting of the trees was necessary to render them available for the market. The bill -alleges that the defendant’s interference with the removal of 'the trees would cause irreparable injury unless restrained by injunction, and. that the plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. The demurrer to the hill is based solely on the theory that there is an adequate legal remedy for the injury of which the hill complains- This theory was not sustained by the Court below, and the demurrer was overruled by an order which is the occasion of the pending appeal.

That the