213 Mo. App. 223 - Williams v. Carr’s Empirical Analysis
1923
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
2
states following
December 1935
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on St. Louis Safe Deposit & Savings Bank v. Kennett Estate · Scharer v. Pantler · Kenwood Land Co. v. Hancock Investment Co. · Riverbank Improvement Co. v. Bancroft · Kitchen v. Hawley
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is held that the ‘law favors the frée and untrammelled use of real property. Restrictions in conveyances of the fee are regarded unfavorably and are therefore strictly construed.’ [Scharer v. Pantler, 127 Mo. App. 433, 437 .] “ ‘But, of course, the rule of construction thus stated is subject to that which obtains with respect to all contracts requiring the courts to give effect to the plain intention of the parties as gleaned from the language employed in the covenant when viewed in the light of the entire context of the instrument.’ [Kitchen v. Hawley, 150 Mo. App. 497, 503 .] In view of the law favoring the untrammelled use of property where the intention to create building restrictions is doubtful, the ambiguity will be resolved against the restrictions. [Whittaker v. Realty & Investment Co., 197 Mo. App. 377 ; Conrad v. Boogher, 201 Mo. App. 644 .] It is stated in Land Company v. Investment Company, 169 Mo. App. 715 , 722— “ ‘Although restrictions on the fee are not favored, yet when the intention of the parties is clear, court will enforce them. [Hutchinson v. Ulrich, 145 Ill. 336 ; Kitchen v. Hawley, 150 Mo. App. 497 .] The intention of the parties must be determined from the language of the covenant itself considered in connection with the surrounding circumstances at the time the covenant was made (Ibid) ; or, as it is sometimes said, from the langauage of the covenant itself considered in the light of the entire context of the instrument containing it. [Kitchen v”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.