Peters v. Buckner
Decision Date | 08 July 1921 |
Docket Number | No. 22649.,No. 22650.,22649.,22650. |
Citation | 232 S.W. 1024,288 Mo. 618 |
Parties | PETERS et al. v. BUCKNER, Judge, et al. STATE ex rel. MEADOW PARK LAND CO. v. MEADOW PARK LAND CO. v. BUCKNER, Judge. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
the most elevated, commanding, and beautiful location in the entire addition, and indeed of the entire neighborhood. Each and every lot in that addition is impressed with a certain use, with an easement, or, more specifically, a negative easement, which was created and is evidenced by certain "restrictions and agreements," contained in the title deeds of each and every lot holder except those lots not yet sold, but now owned by the original owner, Meadow Park Land Company. That company is the common source of title, and it established and promulgated the plan and purpose of these restrictive covenants and agreed with all purchasers in the addition and owners "of adjacent land to embody the same covenants in the title to every lot in the addition, except a slight area, which is not material here, and both express and implied covenants and restrictions exist between it (the Meadow Park Land Company) and each and all the purchasers and grantees of it of lots in said addition, and also by an express contract between it and the owners of adjacent lands to the effect that the same covenants and restrictions herein set out shall be incorporated in the title and enforced as to each and every lot in said Meadow Park addition, whether they be owned by it, the Meadow Park Land Company, or its grantees. And as to this the express language of the answer of the Meadow Park Land Company in the said condemnation case, which allegations are set out in the petitions for these writs and are therefore admitted by the defendants in the case at bar by reason of their demurrers to the petitions for these writs, is to this effect:
The exact terms of the restrictive covenants are as here set out; and there is no dispute about them, for they are recited in the condemnation petition, and in each of the petitions for these writs, and consequently are admitted by all parties, and they are embodied in each and every deed from the Meadow Park Land Company to its grantees, the Peters, as well as every other lot owning defendant in the condemnation case, immediately following the granting clause in such deeds, and they are as follows:
By virtue of the established residential character of this entire addition and neighborhood brought about and secured by these obligatory covenants all the lots in the addition acquired an enhanced and stable value, and the location and carrying on of a great public school on the proposed site will entirely obliterate that character and destroy the value of adjacent lots as high-class residence property, to the great damage of these plaintiffs.
It is alleged in these petitions, and is therefore admitted under the demurrers, thus:
"And these plaintiffs say that the taking and appropriation of the schoolhouse site and the use thereof for that purpose will violate the agreements and restrictive covenants between these plaintiffs and the Meadow Park Land Company and other persons parties to the said condemnation ilia who now own the building lots within the said site as grantees of the said Meadow Park Land Company hereinbefore recited, and will deprive these plaintiffs of their said right, title, interest, and easements in and to the said lots and each of them comprised within the schoolhouse site, and that thereby the plaintiffs' said lot 7 in block 5 will be depreciated in value, and they will be thereby damaged in a large sum, to wit, the sum of $750."
And the damages in this respect of the Meadow Park Land Company are alleged in the petition for mandamus, and the demurrer admits the truth of that allegation, to be $21,000.
Counsel for plaintiffs correctly state the legal question involved in this language: The material and controlling proposition in the condemnation case therefore is substantially this: May the Peterses (for instance), who own a 50 foot lot across the street from the proposed schoolhouse site, and which fronts the proposed site, recover in the condemnation proceeding the amount that their lot is depreciated in value and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Washington Suburban Sanitary Com'n v. Frankel, 369
... ... 858 (1890) (Holmes, J.); Allen v. Detroit, 167 Mich. 464, 133 N.W. 317 (1911); Burger v. St. Paul, 241 Minn. 285, 64 N.W.2d 73 (1954); Peters v. Buckner, 288 Mo. 618, 232 S.W. 1024 (1921); Horst v. Housing Authority, 184 Neb. 215, 166 N.W.2d 119 (1969); Meredith v. Washoe County School ... ...
-
Aufderheide v. Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co.
... ... 527; St. Louis v. Dorr, 145 Mo. 485; Kansas City v. Liebi, 298 Mo. 569; State ex rel. v. McKelvey, 301 Mo. 1; State ex rel. Land Co. v. Buckner, 288 Mo. 618; State ex rel. v. Rambauer, 124 Mo. 598; Railroad v. Wyatt, 223 Mo. 351; Dillard v. Anderson, 282 Mo. 436; Davis v. Lea, 293 Mo. 660; ... ...
-
In re Kansas City Ordinance No.39946
... ... 1 Nichols on Eminent Domain, § 101, p. 280; 10 H. C. L. p. 73. In the recent case of Peters v. Buckner, 288 Mo. 618, 232 S. W. 1024, 17 A. L. R. 543, where the owners of property in a large addition had received deeds with building ... ...
-
State v. Christopher
... ... ]), this court threshed out the question, and the ruling in that case has never been departed from in any subsequent ruling." Graves, J., in Peters v. Buckner, 288 Mo. loc. cit. 636, 232 S. W. 1029 ... In that case we said: ... "Our Constitution of 1875 ... ...