Alden

This appeal grows out of a second trial of this action. In the former trial, as in the second, the defendant prevailed, and an appeal was taken by the plaintiff to the supreme court from the judgment and the order denying him a new trial. The judgment and the order were reversed (Alden v. Mayfield, 163 Cal. 793 , [Ann. Cas. 1914A, 258, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1022, 127 Pac. 44 ]), and the nature of the action and the issues as presented and tried at the former trial are stated in the opinion in that case as follows:

In the opinion, it is said: “It is to be noted that the answer does not base the right of removal upon any agreement between the landlord and tenant, and the court does not find that the removal was by virtue of any such agreement. Wherefore, all of respondent’s argument based upon section 1013 of the Civil Code is meaningless. The pleadings and the findings are to the effect that the property removed was the tenant’s property; was affixed to the freehold for the purpose of trade, ornament, and convenience and had not become an integral part of the store or premises. This is a finding under section 1019 of the Civil Code, which permits such removals under the indicated…