Property

CASE BRIEF

Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust Co.

COURT
Missouri Court of Appeals, 1975

PARTIES
Ps = Neighbors of D in Kingsbury Place
D = Louise Johnston, owner of property in question

FACTS
D directs executor of her will to raze her home and sell the land upon which it is built.

CLAIMS
Ps assert that razing the home will adversely affect their property rights, violate terms of subdivision
trust indenture for Kingsbury, and produce actionable private nuisance and is contrary to public policy.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Ps files petition seeking injunction and are denied. On trial, the temporary restraining order was
dissolved and issues found against Ps. Ps appeal the denial.

ISSUE
Does the testamentary right go against public policy?

RULE(S)
 Public policy (or rather “against public policy,” which means that which conflicts with morals of the
time and contravenes any established interest of society)
 The power to dispose of property owned during life after death by will (“testamentary” right, or the
right to “devise”)

HOLDING
The Court holds execution of D’s will would be an issue of public policy involving individual property
rights and the community at large and more importantly, that to allow the condition of the will would be
in violation of the public policy of this state.

REASONING
1. No individual or group of individuals would benefit from destruction of home
a. Demolition will result in an unwarranted loss and as a result will depreciate adjoining
property values, including corresponding losses for other neighborhood homes.
b. Also could allow for direct access to Kingsbury Place from an adjacent alley, increasing
likelihood that lot will be subject to uses detrimental to health, safety and beauty of
neighborhood.
c. Without benefit to D, who is now deceased.
2. State ex rel. McClintock v. Guinotte
a. Taking of property by inheritance of will is not an absolute or natural right (Missouri
Supreme Court)
b. While living, person has fewer restraints in managing, using, or disposing of his money or
property than a decedent by will.
3. If no guiding statute, judicial decision, or constitutional provision, then it becomes a matter of public
policy.
 Property
CASE BRIEF

a. Well-ordered society cannot tolerate waste and destruction of resources when it directly
impacts important interests of other members of that society.

ORDER
Court reverses and remands.

DISSENT(S)
Justice Reed:
 Rights to free speech and religion are not absolute and should not be held that one can remain
on private property against the will of owner because one is exercising right to spread religious
views.
 P/Appellant could have moved to nearby public highway rather than private premises and there
was no indication that there would have been an objection.
 State has duty to allow for opportunity of information, education, and religion to its inhabitants
but it has not been adjudged that it must commandeer private property of other citizens to carry
out that duty.
 Court has also pointed out that by the First Amendment, owner of property may protect himself
against the intrusion of strangers.
 Rights of owner, which is also protected by Constitution, is not outweighed by interests of
trespasser, even if trespassing is in behalf of free speech or religion.