Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust Co. case brief

Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust Co. , Missouri Ct of Appeals, 1975; pg384

FACTS

1. P seeks injunction to prevent demolition of house because owner of home left a will directing her home to be razed and sell land. P assert razing the home will adversely affect their property rights and violate terms of trust and produce an actionable private nuisance and is contrary to public policy
2. Rule – Law respects ownership but when one attempts to compel successor to do what is against the public good, the law steps and pronounces the condition void
3. Principle of Public Policy – May not impose conditions that are opposed to public policy

Conflicts with the morals of time and contravenes any established interest of society

Law refuses to enforce or recognize them on grounds that they have mischievous tenancy so as to be injuries to the interest of the state.

Holding – Balancing the harms and according to wealth maximizing transaction and efficiency, better off not demolishing the house

No harm to the decedent and no substantial benefit to anyone if house was torn down

House standing is worth 8x the worth if it was knocked down

Public policy – Architecture significance, landmark, marketing themselves to tourist industry, helps with property value, beneficial to society, stabilize city in difficult times, interest at stake

-Dissent – Court took judicial notice (didn’t have any evidence and bringing it into the case on its own)

-There were other vacant lots and no such impairments

-Based on non-facts and assumptions and imaged possibilities

-Nothing to preclude the decedent right