Hug v. Van Burkleo

58 Mo. 202
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedOctober 15, 1874
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 58 Mo. 202 (Hug v. Van Burkleo) 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
Hug v. Van Burkleo, 58 Mo. 202 (Mo. 1874).

Opinion

Sherwood, Judge,

delivered the, opinion of the court.

Where parties to a lease, by the terms of the instrument, agree that upon the surrender of the leasehold premises the value of improvements made thereon shall be ascertained by three householders, the lessor and the lessee each to select one, and those so selected to choose a third; in’ the event of the refusal of either to comply with such stipulation, it is out of the power of a court of equity, by the appointment of appraisers or otherwise, to specifically enforce the contract thus made. A petition, however, which seeks to obtain equitable relief based on the above stated ground, will, although it asks for specific performance of such a contract, still state a cause of action, as equity would have jurisdiction in such cases to have an account taken as to-tlie value of improvements made. Both these points were so ruled in the case of Biddle vs. Ramsey (52 Mo., 153).

The judgment of the court below, because it attempts to specifically enforce the contract made in the present instance between the lessor and the lessee, by the appointment of three householders to appraise or ascertain the value of the improvements made on the property leased, must be reversed ■ and the cause remanded;

the other judges concur.

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

Related

Tureman v. Altman
239 S.W.2d 304 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1951)
Oregon-Washington R. & N. Co. v. Spokane P. & S. Ry. Co.
163 P. 600 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1917)
Superior Oil & Gas Co. v. Mehlin
1910 OK 96 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)
General Electric Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co.
144 F. 458 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York, 1906)
Cooke v. Miller
54 A. 927 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1903)
Bales v. Gilbert
84 Mo. App. 675 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1900)
Lingeman v. Shirk
43 N.E. 33 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1896)
Diffenderfer v. Board of President of St. Louis Public Schools
25 S.W. 542 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
Coles v. Peck
96 Ind. 333 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1884)
Biddle v. McDonough
15 Mo. App. 532 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1884)
Black v. Rogers
75 Mo. 441 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1882)
City of St. Louis v. St. Louis Gaslight Co.
70 Mo. 69 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1879)
Strohmaier v. Zeppenfeld
3 Mo. App. 429 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 Mo. 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hug-v-van-burkleo-mo-1874.