Handlan v. Stipel
| Decision Date | 02 March 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 20781.,20781. |
| Parties | HANDLAN v. STIPEL et al. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Vital W. Garesche, Judge.
Suit by A. H. Handlan against Otto F. Stifel and another. From an adverse decree, plaintiff appeals. Transferred to Court of Appeals.
Frumberg & Russell, of St. Louis, for appellant.
Lyon & Swarts, of St. Louis, for respondents.
This is a suit in equity wherein the plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendants from removing certain seats from the grand stand in a baseball park. On January 22, 1914, plaintiff in writing leased to defendant Stifel, for a term of three years, certain lots in the city of St. Louis known as Handlan's Park. By the terms of the lease the lessee was required during his term to erect on the demised premises, at his own cost, a suitable grandstand; they also gave him the option of buying the premises at a stipulated price, but provided that, if he did not avail himself of the privilege before the expiration of the lease, the grand stand and all other improvements made by him should become the property of the lessor. The lessee did not elect to purchase the premises, but at the end of his term began removing the chairs, which were fastened to the floor of the grand stand with screws. On application of plaintiff, and upon his giving the statutory bond, in the sum of $2,500, the court issued a temporary restraining order. Afterward, by stipulation filed in the cause, the temporary injunction was dissolved, defendants waived all claims to damages growing out of its issuance, and replaced the chairs that they had removed from the grand stand. The parties further agreed that the situation in respect to the chairs should remain in statu quo pending the final determination of this suit.
While there is no suggestion by counsel on either side, the record as a whole obviously questions our jurisdiction of this appeal. On the merits the only question involved in the case is whether, by the terms of the lease, and on the other facts in proof, the chairs are fixtures; that is, a part of the freehold. If they are, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief he seeks; otherwise, his bill should be dismissed. While the title to the chairs is the matter in controversy, the consideration that determines it—that is, whether the chairs are fixtures, or chattels— is wholly collateral to the title to the real estate itself, and that is not in question. The title to real...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aufderheide v. Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co.
...Court is without jurisdiction. State ex rel. v. Mid-State Serum Co., 264 S.W. 878; Cambest v. Hydroelectric Co., 292 Mo. 570; Handlan v. Stifel, 219 S.W. 616. (4) The jurisdiction of this court must affirmatively appear upon the record, and where it depends upon the amount in dispute the co......
-
Grobe v. Energy Coal & Supply Co.
...up for judgment. Schroer v. Brooks, 200 S.W. 1068, and cases there cited; Stough v. Steelville, E. & P. Co., 217 S.W. 515; Handlan v. Stifel et al., 219 S.W. 616; et al. v. Turner et al., 242 S.W. 940. BRADLEY, J. Cox, P. J., and Bailey, J., concur. OPINION BRADLEY, J. This is an action to ......
-
Aufderheide v. Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co.
... ... is without jurisdiction. State ex rel. v. Mid-State Serum ... Co., 264 S.W. 878; Cambest v. Hydroelectric ... Co., 292 Mo. 570; Handlan v. Stifel, 219 S.W ... 616. (4) The jurisdiction of this court must affirmatively ... appear upon the record, and where it depends upon the ... ...
-
Joe Dan Market v. Wentz
...455, 48 S.W. 448; Gary Realty Co. v. Kelly, 284 Mo. 418, 224 S.W. 410; Cambest v. Hydro Electric Co., 292 Mo. 570, 239 S.W. 477; Handlan v. Stifel, 219 S.W. 616; State ex rel. v. Mid-State Serum Co., 264 S.W. 878; Aufderheide v. Ice & Fuel Co., 4 S.W. (2d) 776; City of St. Joseph v. Georget......