Home/Supreme Court of Missouri/Compton-Hill Improvement Co. v. Tower's Executors & Devisees

Compton-Hill Improvement Co. v. Tower's Executors & Devisees

59 S.W. 239, 158 Mo. 282, 1900 Mo. LEXIS 79
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedNovember 12, 1900
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 59 S.W. 239 (Compton-Hill Improvement Co. v. Tower's Executors & Devisees) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Compton-Hill Improvement Co. v. Tower's Executors & Devisees, 59 S.W. 239, 158 Mo. 282, 1900 Mo. LEXIS 79 (Mo. 1900).

Opinion

GANTT, P. J.

Prior to the conveyance upon which this bill for injunction is predicated, George E. Tower was the owner of a parcel of land in the city of St. Louis containing about 4 85-100 acres, and known as city block 1366, with a frontage of 610 feet on the east line of Grand avenue, and a depth eastwardly of 295 feet.

On December 4, 1889, said Tower by warranty deed conveyed the southern 100 feet of said land to William E. Nolker for $9,000.

The deed contained the following conditions and restrictions :

“Provided, however, and this conveyance is upon condition, that the grantee herein shall not, nor shall his heirs or assigns, erect or allow to be erected on the premises above described, any dwelling nearer than 50 feet to the east line of Grand avenue. The grantee shall not, nor shall his heirs or assigns erect or put upon the Grand avenue front of the premises hereby conveyed, a building of any kind save and except one dwelling house and appurtenances, and such dwelling house shall not cost less than $7,500. The grantee shall not, nor shall his heirs or assigns erect or permit any business establishment to be erected on the premises hereby conveyed, the property being conveyed for residence purposes only, bor shall he or they create or permit any nuisance to be created or maintained on said premises or any part [287]*287thereof. In the event of the breach of any of the foregoing conditions, the estate hereby granted and conveyed shall end, and the title to the property aforesaid shall forthwith revert to the grantors herein, their heirs and legal representatives. And in consideration of the acceptance of the foregoing conditions by the grantee, and of the purchase money aforesaid, the said grantors, George P. Tower and wife, do by this conveyance subject all property now owned by them in said city block No. 1366, to the same conditions and restrictions above set forth, so that neither of the said grantors will, nor their heirs or assigns shall hold, use or convey their said property or any part thereof except in conformity with and subject to the same conditions and restrictions as herein stated, and in ease of sale, said property shall be sold only in lots of the size of the lot hereby conveyed or larger.” This deed was recorded December 10, 1889.

On January 6, 1890, Nolker conveyed the one hundred feet to Henry Haarstick, the president of the Compton-Hill Improvement Company, and on the following day, January 7, 1890, Mr. Haarstick conveyed the same to said company. In the negotiations which led up to the deed of Tower to Nolker, Julius Pitzman acted as the agent of Nolker and drew the conveyance, and Moses Greenwood, a real estate agent, represented Mr. Tower. Nolker was a stockholder in the Compton-Hill Improvement Company.

The evidence very clearly discloses that Pitzman was notified by Greenwood, that Tower would not sell to the Compton-Hill Company, and would insist on' knowing definitely the name of the buyer and the purpose to which the 100 feet was to be put. Pitzman told him he would let him know the next day. Next day Pitzman told Greenwood that Nolker was the man who desired to purchase the property, and “would put a very handsome house on it.” Pitzman at that time was secretary of the Compton-Hill Company and had the management of its addition. He prepared the spe[288]*288cial covenants as to tbe restrictions on tbe lot which Tower signed without legal advice. He testified: “I had a plat showing the contemplated subdivision of Compton Heights. I told him (Greenwood) we were trying to make arrangements with Mr. Nolker to build a very fine house on the corner of Grand and Longfellow avenues, and we considered it of very great importance to get him, but the lot 118 feet wide which was all we had would not be sufficient, and we wanted 100 feet more. I showed him the plat and showed him that the idea was to give Mr. Nolker about a square lot 200 feet by 200 feet, with a view to improving it in an elegant manner.” Nolker testified that he desired to build on Compton Heights and paid $9,000 for the Tower 100 feet, but neither he nor Pitzman testified to any contract whereby he was to buy Lot One in the Compton' Heights plat.

Within less than a month Nolker disposed of the 100 feet to the Compton Heights Company and Nolker never built on it.

In July, 1890, the Compton Heights Company filed a plat, which will accompany this opinion, whereby the 100 feet bought of Tower was included in their addition and subdivided so as to become a part of three lots, to-wit, lots 2, 3 and 4.

Lot 4 was sold to Mrs. Tinker who erected a house thereon and a stable, the latter being largely if not entirely on the part of her lot which was originally a part of the TowerNolker 100 feet.

No residence has ever been built on the 100 feet. In May, 1893, Tower notified the Compton Heights Company through its president, Mr. Haarstick, that he had platted for sale the remainder of his tract, city block 1366. This plat indicated lots smaller in frontage than 100 feet. Thereupon this bill for injunction was filed.

The circuit court of the city of St. Louis dismissed the bill, and plaintiff appeals.

[289]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wallace v. Grasso
119 S.W.3d 567 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2003)
Wright v. Fuel Oil Co.
114 S.W.2d 959 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1938)
Conrad v. Boogher
214 S.W. 211 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1919)
Bolin v. Tyrol Investment Co.
200 S.W. 1059 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1918)
General Accident & Life Insurance v. Owen Building Co.
192 S.W. 145 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1917)
King v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.
126 S.W. 415 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1910)
Scharer v. Pantler
105 S.W. 668 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1907)
Tower v. Compton Hill Improvement Co.
91 S.W. 104 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 S.W. 239, 158 Mo. 282, 1900 Mo. LEXIS 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/compton-hill-improvement-co-v-towers-executors-devisees-mo-1900.