Case ID: sw2d_983/html/0164-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNION SEVENTY PARTNERSHIP, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. MARK TWAIN BANK, Defendant/Respondent.
    No. 73773.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Oct. 27, 1998.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 19, 1999.
    Rexford H. Caruthers, Steven Dyer, St. Louis, for appellants.
    E. Michael Murphy, Henry F. Luepke, St. Louis, for respondent.
    Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr. C.J., and CRANDALL and AHRENS, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs, Union Seventy Partnership, et al., appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, Mark Twain Bank, in an action for breach of contract and misrepresentation.

We have reviewed the record on appeal and find that no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been provided with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).