Case Name: William H. STALLINGS, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. The PRIDE ORGANIZATION, INC., et al., Defendants/Appellants
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1998-03-31
Citations: 964 S.W.2d 251
Docket Number: No. 72407
Parties: William H. STALLINGS, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. The PRIDE ORGANIZATION, INC., et al., Defendants/Appellants.
Judges: Before CRANE, P.J., and RHODES RUSSELL and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 964
Pages: 251–252

Head Matter:
William H. STALLINGS, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. The PRIDE ORGANIZATION, INC., et al., Defendants/Appellants.
No. 72407.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
March 31, 1998.
Joe A. Johnson, & Yates, L.L.C., St. Louis, for defendants/appellants.
Eugene Portman, Wrenn Terrill Kates, Clayton, for plaintiffirespondent.
Before CRANE, P.J., and RHODES RUSSELL and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Respondent filed a suit to compel specific performance of a promissory note. Appellants raised fraud in the procurement as an affirmative defense. Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted. Appellants appeal.
The judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. A written opinion would have no precedential value. However, we have provided the parties with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth our reasoning.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).