Response or Comment
At least since the decision in Poole's Case, 1 Salk. 368 (1703), it has been considered as settled that a tenant has the right to remove trade fixtures placed, upon the demised premises for the purpose of furthering his trade. There is a well-marked tendency in some jurisdictions to greatly extend this right of removal so as to include anything added by the tenant to the leased property "in furtherance of the purpose for which the premises were leased." Hayward v. School District, 139 Mich. 541, 102 N. W. 999; Bircher v. Parker, 40 Mo. 118; Heddrick v. Smith, 103 Ind. 203; Wittenmeyer v. Board of Education, 10. C. C. 119. The right of removal, in the cases where it exists, must of course be exercised within the time settled by the law of the jurisdiction, and the rules in the various states are not entirely harmonious in that regard. For example compare Kerr v. Kingsbury, 39 Irich. 150, with Loughrad v. Ross, 45 N. Y. 792.
Aigler, Ralph W. "Effect of Covenants in Leases upon Tenant's Right to Remove Trade Fixtures." Mich. L. Rev. 11 (1913): 592-3.