Lewis v. Kaplan
Decision Date | 10 January 1928 |
Docket Number | No. 19966.,19966. |
Citation | 300 S.W. 1041 |
Parties | LEWIS et al. v. KAPLAN et al. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; John W. Calhoun, Judge.
Action by Jas. A. W. Lewis and others against May Kaplan and another, doing business as the Harris Realty Company, and Edward E. Christopher, as Building Commissioner of the City of St. Louis, to enjoin erection of store building. Temporary injunction was granted, and, on final hearing, the court entered judgment sustaining plaintiffs' bill and ordering injunction to be made permanent. From this judgment, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Superseded on rehearing, see 5 S.W.2d. 699.
Marvin E. Boisseau, of St. Louis, for appellants.
W. Scott Hancock, of St. Louis, for respondents.
This action is brought to enjoin the erection of a store building on a lot in block No. 3909, in the city of St. Louis, situate at the southwest corner of Boyle and McPherson avenues. The bill was filed on January 20, 1926. A temporary injunction was granted on April 7, 1926. Upon final hearing of the cause, the court entered judgment sustaining plaintiffs' bill and ordering that the temporary injunction be made permanent. From this judgment defendants appeal.
The lot in question fronts about 35 feet on the south side of McPherson avenue, and extends southwardly on the west side of Boyle avenue about 164 feet to an alley. There is a dwelling house on the north portion of the lot fronting on McPherson avenue. On December 3, 1925, plaintiff Elizabeth M. Sheble was the owner of the property, and plaintiff Arthur A. Lueke was in possession of the property, and occupied the same for residence purposes, under a lease from plaintiff Sheble for a term commencing July 18, 1924, and ending July 18, 1926. Plaintiffs Arthur A. Luelte and Winnifred Lueke are husband and wife. Plaintiffs Jas. A. W. Lewis, F. B. Chamberlain, Frank W. Corley, and R. L. Thompson are the owners of residence properties in the neighborhood of the Sheble property. Some of these properties are located on the north side, and some on the south side, of McPherson avenue. On December 23, 1925, negotiations between plaintiff Sheble and the defendant May Kaplan resulted in a tentative agreement for the sale of the Sheble property by plaintiff Sheble to the defendant Kaplan, which agreement was reduced to writing, as follows:
Defendant Kaplan, desiring to have immediate possession of the south 80 feet of the property, and to erect a store building thereon, declined to sign said contract of sale, unless plaintiff Arthur A. Lueke, who held the property under the lease aforesaid, would sign an agreement to allow said defendant to have immediate possession of said south 80 feet of the property, and to erect a store building thereon. Accordingly, on December 8, 1925, the said plaintiff signed the following agreement, indorsed on the back of said contract of sale:
"This agreement witnesseth: That, whereas a certain lease on house and premises, 4300 McPherson was made and executed by and between Mrs. Elizabeth Sheble as lessor and Arthur Lueke, as lessee, on July 18, 1924, and ending July 18, 1926, and whereas lessor has entered into a contract to sell the above-described property now if the within contract of sale is consummated, the privilege to build on or occupy the south 80 feet of lot is hereby granted the purchaser, but if...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gibson v. Sharp, 7393
...139, or had acquired a power coupled with an interest, Darlington v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 99 Mo.App. 1, 12, 72 S.W. 122; Lewis v. Kaplan, Mo.App., 300 S.W. 1041, 1043; Baker v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 57 Mo. 265. The principle was rejected in toto by Mine La Motte Lead & Smelting Co. v......
- State ex rel. Rose v. Webb City
- State ex rel. Rose v. Webb City
-
Lewis v. Kaplan
...and defendants appeal. Motion to dismiss appeal overruled, judgment reversed, and cause remanded, with directions. Superseding opinion, 300 S. W. 1041. Marvin E. Boisseau, of St. Louis, for W. Scott Hancock and Judson, Green & Henry, all of St. Louis, for respondents. SUTTON, C. This is an ......