Peters v. Buckner
Supreme Court of Missouri
Prohibition; Mandamus. (1) Tbe covenants and agreements in tbe deeds from and between tbe Meadow Park Land Company and its grantees, who are owners of lots in tbe addition outside. of tbe proposed schoolbouse site (including plaintiffs Peters), create and vest in each of them as owners • a property right, an easement in and to each and every lot within the schoolhouse site, which is an appurtenance to their respective lots.
Read the full summary
Prohibition; Mandamus. (1) Tbe covenants and agreements in tbe deeds from and between tbe Meadow Park Land Company and its grantees, who are owners of lots in tbe addition outside. of tbe proposed schoolbouse site (including plaintiffs Peters), create and vest in each of them as owners • a property right, an easement in and to each and every lot within the schoolhouse site, which is an appurtenance to their respective lots. Jones on Easements (Original Ed.), secs. 1, 5, 105, 106, 111, 112, 113, 116; Coughlin v. Barker, 46 Mo. App. 54; Meriwether v. Joy, 85 Mo. App. 634; Doerr v. Cobbs, 146…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodson, J.
These two cases were argued and submitted to this court as one case, and for that reason we will write the opinion as' though only one case were here. The facts are undisputed, as shown by statements of counsel, and are as follows:
The controlling facts and the applicable legal principles in these two cases being so nearly identical, it appears to us that by considering them together as practically one case the time and labors of the court, as well as of counsel, will be conserved, and accordingly we shall do so.
The object and purpose of each of these suits.is to control the judicial conduct…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Story v. . New York Elevated R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1882
- United States v. WelchSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Allen v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
- City of Chicago v. WardIllinois Supreme Court · 1897
- Ladd v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Johnstone v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1928
- Kansas City v. LiebiSupreme Court of Missouri · 1923
- Hamer v. State Highway Commission of the MissouriSupreme Court of Missouri · 1957
- Town of Stamford v. VuonoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
- Adaman Mutual Water Company, a Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.