Connection lost
Server error
Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust Co., NA Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A testatrix directed in her will that her historic home be razed. The court invalidated this provision, holding that the senseless, post-mortem destruction of valuable property for no rational purpose violates public policy.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a testator’s right to dispose of property is not absolute. Courts may void testamentary provisions that are capricious, serve no purpose, and cause significant harm to the estate and the community, as a matter of public policy.
Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust Co., NA Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Louise Woodruff Johnston died, leaving a will that directed her executor to raze her home at #4 Kingsbury Place and sell the land. Kingsbury Place is an architecturally significant private subdivision in St. Louis, designated as a city landmark and governed by a trust indenture intended to maintain its character as a high-class residential area. The testatrix’s home was valued at $40,000. If razed, the vacant lot would sell for approximately $5,000, less demolition costs of $4,350, resulting in a net loss of over $39,000 to the estate. Neighboring property owners and subdivision trustees sued to enjoin the demolition, arguing it would violate the trust indenture, create a nuisance, and contravene public policy. Evidence indicated that destroying the home would diminish neighboring property values, damage the architectural integrity of the historic district, and result in the loss of a needed housing unit. The will provided no reason for the destructive directive.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May a court, on public policy grounds, invalidate a testamentary provision directing an executor to destroy valuable real property when the destruction serves no apparent purpose and is detrimental to the estate, neighboring property owners, and the community?
Yes. The testamentary provision directing the demolition of the house is void Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
May a court, on public policy grounds, invalidate a testamentary provision directing an executor to destroy valuable real property when the destruction serves no apparent purpose and is detrimental to the estate, neighboring property owners, and the community?
Conclusion
This case is a leading authority on the "right to destroy," establishing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco l
Legal Rule
A testator's right to dispose of property by will is not an Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the principle that testamentary freedom must yield Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat null
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A will provision directing an executor to raze a valuable, historic
