[7] We have held that there is not the slightest difference between real and personal property except so far as such difference is created by particular statutes. Hoing v. River Valley Gas Co., 196 Ark. 1165, 121 S.W.2d 513 (1938). Here, the statute adopted by Act 498 of 1989 and amended by Act 457 of 1991 does not distinguish between real and personal property, and the principle announced in Hoing, supra, means that the word, "property," includes both real and personal property.

"Collins v. Mt. Pleasant Oil and Gas Company [ 85 Kan. 483], 118 P. 54 [30 L.R.A., N.S., 134] — four years; "Hoing v. River Valley Gas Company [ 196 Ark. 1165], 121 S.W.2d 513 — seven months; "Updegraff v. Lesen (Colorado), 167 P. 342 — nine months.

See also, Arkansas Cold Storage Ice Co. v. Fulbright, 171 Ark. 552, 285 S.W. 12. The importance of the intention of the improvement was emphasized in Romich v. Kempner Bros. Realty Co., 192 Ark. 454, 92 S.W.2d 215 and W. B. Thompson Co. v. Lewis, 120 Ark. 252, 179 S.W. 343. It is notable that it is recognized that the manner of attachment and the removability of machinery are circumstances to be considered in arriving at the intention of the parties. Among other cases holding or recognizing that there was a question of fact are: British American Mortgage Co. v. Scott, 70 Ark. 230, 65 S.W. 936; Kearby v. Douglas , 215 Ark. 523, 221 S.W.2d 426; Hoing v. River Valley Gas Co., 196 Ark. 1165 121 S.W. 513. I do not consider Alwes v. Richheimer, 185 Ark. 535, 47 S.W.2d 1084, the case cited in the majority opinion, to be contrary to my position or the cases herein cited or to mandate the affirmance of the sustaining of the demurrer in this case.

In that case, the well was located in the middle of a cotton field and it was held that something more than the actual ground occupied must be considered, — the right of ingress and egress to and from the well over the cultivated lands of the lessor, and the fact of possibility of drainage by another well nearby. From all of which the court was unable to say as a matter of law that no injury was sustained by the lessor. In Hoing v. River Valley Gas Co., 196 Ark. 1165, 121 S.W.2d 513, it was held that the lessee was entitled to recover pipe stored on lessor's land covered by lease, for seven years, where appellant made no claim to the pipe until appellee sought to remove it. In the case at bar there is no contention that the delay in removing the equipment, 12 or 13 months, or whatever it was, worked any injury to appellee, but on the contrary worked to his advantage by reason of his continued use of the gas from the well: nor is it contended that appellee ever asserted any right of ownership in the equipment until appellant advised him in December, 1942, he was preparing to remove it. It was undisputed that the pulling of the casing would deprive appellee of the use of the gas, and it appears that appellant's delay was caused in part at least by his disinclination to deprive appellee of the gas.