Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust Co. Missouri Court of Appeals, 1975. Facts: Louise Woodruff Johnston’s will directed the executor to raze Johnston’s house and sell the land it was on with the proceeds going to her beneficiaries. The house was part of the Kingsbury Place subdivision in St. Louis, which is a city landmark due to its architectural significance. Neighboring property owners and trustees of the subdivision where Johnston’s house was located (plaintiffs) filed for an injunction to stop the destruction of the house, claiming among other things that it would diminish their property values and would be against public policy. At trial it was learned that destroying the house—worth $40,000 as it stood— would provide a net of only $650 to Johnston’s beneficiaries. Procedural History: The trial court denied the plaintiff’s petition for an injunction. P appealed. Issue: Can a landowner instruct, via a will, his/her successor to take actions on the land that would be against public policy? Holding: Maybe, but a court can deem the condition void on the grounds that it contravenes public policy. Reversed the trial court’s decision, remanded for implementation of the injunction. Reasoning: Although a landowner has very few restraints on what he or she may do with the land while living, when the owner attempts to compel his successor in interest to do what is against public policy, a court may deem the condition void. When a person is living, he or she is often restrained by self-interest from destroying personal property or the person’s own land. Upon a person’s death, however, there is no such restraint and it may be proper for a court to step in. Here is such a case. Destroying Johnston’s house for seemingly no reason other than because it was in her will is against public policy. The destruction would decrease the value to her beneficiaries and would decrease the property values in the neighborhood, without providing any benefit to anyone. It is proper for the court to step in here in the name of public policy. Rule of Law: When a landowner attempts to compel his successor in interest to do to the land something against public policy, a court may deem the condition void. Dissent: The majority claims that Johnston’s directive to destroy her house is “capricious” and “senseless,” among other things. However, nothing in the record indicates what her reasoning for the destruction actually is. Moreover, Johnston’s beneficiaries and the City of St. Louis, all of whom the majority seeks to protect with its opinion, are not parties to this lawsuit. The majority simply does not justify its reasoning to invalidate the will’s directive based on public policy grounds. Indeed, “the policy of the law favors freedom in the testamentary disposition of property and that it is the duty of the courts to give effect to the intention of the testator, as expressed in his will, provided such intention does not contravene an established rule of law.” Further, the Supreme Court ruled that a judiciary is not meant to invent their own ideas as to what constitutes public policy.