Mr Mason is a tenant farmer, thus he does not own the land, but may have owned much of the equipment depending on the terms of the tenancy. DA seems to be overly simplistic on this point because Mr Mason does say that he owns much of the equipment, making it unlikely that termination could be "at will". However he also said that there would be some compensation, indicating that the Henderson's were likely excercising a buy-out option of some sort.
Thanks for the clarification. I do remember though, there was some kind of an inheritance she came into from her father-in-law which would give her a chance at another life and free her from servitude.