The case involves a dispute between Producers Lumber & Supply Company, Inc. and Olney Building Company over the demolition of a dwelling constructed on a lot owned by the plaintiff. The trial court initially awarded the plaintiff $600, but the plaintiff appealed, seeking $5,900. The jury found that the defendant acted in good faith, but also acted maliciously, and awarded the plaintiff $300 in exemplary damages. The trial court erred in disregarding the jury's findings, as the evidence supported the jury's conclusions. The defendant admitted to removing the improvements on the lot without notifying the owner and rendering the concrete foundation worthless. The duty to investigate records before commencing work is emphasized in 23 Tex.Jur. 393, § 17. The appellee's plea of improvement in good faith will fail if the jury's answer to Issue No. 1 is supported by evidence, due to the appellee's malicious destruction of the dwelling he built on Lot 8. An improver cannot destroy any improvements made by mistake on someone else's land without their consent, as it would be considered waste, and the improver would be legally required to compensate the landowner for the damage caused. Orts committed waste when he demolished a dwelling on Lot 8 without the knowledge or consent of the landowner, Producers Lumber & Supply Co. As a result, Orts must pay Producers Lumber & Supply Co. $5,000 for the value of the destroyed dwelling. Orts cannot seek reimbursement for the amount he enhanced the value of Lot 8 by erecting the dwelling, as he acted with unclean hands and took the law into his own hands. The appellant is suing in law for the damage that was wilfully done to its property by Orts, acting for the appellee. The appellee's argument that the appellant has unclean hands because it did not offer to pay for the dwelling is incorrect. The appellant was not required to pay until the appellee secured a finding in a court of equity that Orts had constructed the dwelling in good faith and not as a result of his own negligence. Legal cases such as Bush v. Gaffney, Sanders v. Cauley, Bollinger v. McMinn, Commonwealth v. Filiatreau, and Plenderleith v. Glos support these conclusions.

The case involves a dispute between Producers Lumber & Supply Company and Olney Building Company over a house built by Olney on Producers' lot. The jury found that Olney acted in good faith and was not negligent, but that the house was maliciously removed. The dissenting opinion disagrees with the majority's decision to award damages for the house's removal but agrees with the decision to award damages for harm caused to the lot. Producers can seek relief in a suit in trespass to try title or an independent action, and can recover exemplary damages for the house's removal but not compensatory damages. The case also involves a dispute over Olney's right to reimbursement for the amount its improvements enhanced the value of Producers' land. The majority opinion wrongly denies Olney reimbursement because Olney demolished the building, causing damage to property, and therefore does not come into equity with clean hands. However, Olney had the right to remove the building and tear it down if necessary, subject to paying for any damages to Producers' lot. The law in Texas is well settled regarding the right of an improver in good faith to compensation, even where the owner of the land removes the improvements.