Opinion ID: 1410612
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Topsoil.

Text: Plaintiffs contend that defendant removed the topsoil from approximately two and one-half acres of the property, exposing the granite substrata and rendering that land useless for agricultural purposes. The evidence is in conflict, however, as to whether the plaintiffs, in agreeing to defendant's suggestion that this land be leveled, were specific about the method by which this was to be done. Paul Huff testified that he gave specific instructions as to the topsoil. Defendant testified that he did not recall Mr. Huff mentioning anything about the topsoil before the leveling took place, and that if Mr. Huff did say anything about the method of leveling to be used, he just wasn't specific about it  . Defendant also testified that since the leveling took place the land in question has produced a healthy crop of oats. The trial court found that the leveling was part of a long range plan for the improvement of the premises, as required by the lease. Given the particular facts and the conflict in the testimony, we agree with the trial court that plaintiffs failed to prove a breach of the lease under this allegation.