Hug v. Van Burkleo
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Biddle v. McDonough (Mo. Ct. App. 1884)
- Tureman v. Altman (Mo. 1951)
- Superior Oil & Gas Co. v. Mehlin (Okla. 1910)
- General Electric Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York 1906)
- Cooke v. Miller (R.I. 1903)
- Bales v. Gilbert (Mo. Ct. App. 1900)
- Lingeman v. Shirk (Ind. Ct. App. 1896)
- Diffenderfer v. Board of President of St. Louis Public Schools (Mo. 1894)
- Coles v. Peck (Ind. 1884)
- Strohmaier v. Zeppenfeld (Mo. Ct. App. 1877)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
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; inβ 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 β and the cause remanded;
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.