Godfrey v. Hampton
Decision Date | 19 April 1910 |
Citation | 148 Mo. App. 157,127 S.W. 626 |
Parties | GODFREY et al. v. HAMPTON. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; J. Hugo Grimm, Judge.
Action by William Godfrey and another against Dorcas M. Hampton. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Paul V. Janis, for appellant. Eugene C. Slevin, for respondents.
Defendant Dorcas M. Hampton owns the east 35 feet of lot 5, block 2994, of the city of St. Louis, fronting 35 feet on the north line of Maple avenue, having acquired the property by deed dated October 6, 1908, from Nettie Lippe. The property has on it a two-story dwelling house with a basement, and is No. 5221 Maple avenue. The plaintiff's own lots on which, in the same vicinity and on the same thoroughfare, stand their homes. The lot of defendant, Hampton, was formerly owned by E. G. Butler and others as tenants in common, and was by them conveyed on June 8, 1896, to Edward J. Kirby, by deeds filed of record and containing the following covenants:
The conveyance under which plaintiffs hold title contains the same covenants recited from defendant Hampton's deed. Shortly after she acquired her house and lot, she made a contract with defendant Vornholt, who is a builder, to make certain changes in the house so as to adapt it for the occupancy of two families, one to reside on the first, and the other on the second, floor. The house is in the style known as "Queen Anne," has a single entrance in front, a reception hall and open stairway ascending to the second floor, a stairway leading from a rear hall to the second floor; at the rear of the house are two porches, one at the first, and one at the second, floor. Defendant, who has no family, intended to arrange the building so she could let the second story to a married couple without children, and the changes she contracted for, and which were in progress when the present action was instituted, were the installation of a bath and toilet on the first floor, putting an additional door bell at the front entrance to communicate with the second floor, placing a separate electric meter on the second floor, and a sink and boiler in the rear room of that floor, enlarging the two rear porches, connecting them with a stairway extending from the second-story porch to...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Philibert v. Benjamin Ansehl Co.
-
Kraemer v. Shelley
... ... Lynch, 70 N.Y. 440, ... 26 Am. Rep. 615; Farmers Exch. Bk. v. Sollers, 353 ... Ill. 224, 187 N.E. 290, 89 A.L.R. 398; Godfrey v ... Hampton, 148 Mo.App. 157, 127 S.W. 626; Meade v ... Denistone, 196 A. 330, 114 A.L.R. 1227; Fairchild v ... Raines, 24 Cal.2d 818, ... ...
- Philibert v. Ansehl Company., 35207.
-
Hanna v. Nowell
...Kraemer v. Shelley, 355 Mo. 814, 198 S.W.2d 679; Cook v. Tide Water Associated Oil Company, Mo.App., 281 S.W.2d 415; Godfrey v. Hampton, 148 Mo.App. 157, 127 S.W. 626.6 'Il Penseroso,' 11. 126-130.7 Mickelberry's Food Products Co. v. Haeussermann, Mo., 247 S.W.2d 731, 738; Mutual Ben. Healt......
-
Frank S. Alexander, the Housing of America's Families: Control, Exclusion, and Privilege
...1, 5, 40 A. 855, 856 (N.J. Ch. 1898). 66 Kitching v. Brown, 180 N.Y. 414, 419, 425, 73 N.E. 241, 242, 244 (1905). 67 Godfrey v. Hampton, 148 Mo. App. 157, 163, 127 S.W. 626, 628 (1910) ("We think a building of that character [a duplex] would cause all the mischief intended to be prevented b......