Case Name: DRUMMOND COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS COKE & FOUNDRY SUPPLY CO., and Robert E. Woods, III, and Score Inc., and Karen Woods, Defendants, and Southwest Bank of St. Louis, Defendant/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-12-23
Citations: 122 S.W.3d 723
Docket Number: No. ED 82835
Parties: DRUMMOND COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS COKE & FOUNDRY SUPPLY CO., and Robert E. Woods, III, and Score Inc., and Karen Woods, Defendants, and Southwest Bank of St. Louis, Defendant/Respondent.
Judges: Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 122
Pages: 723–724

Head Matter:
DRUMMOND COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS COKE & FOUNDRY SUPPLY CO., and Robert E. Woods, III, and Score Inc., and Karen Woods, Defendants, and Southwest Bank of St. Louis, Defendant/Respondent.
No. ED 82835.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Dec. 23, 2003.
Mark E. Goodman, Andrew M. Ullucei, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Ann E. Buckley, Daniel C. Nelson, Jacqueline P. Ulin, St. Louis, MO, for respondent, Southwest Bank of St. Louis.
Thomas M. Blumenthal, St. Louis, MO, for respondents, Robert Woods III and Karen Woods.
Michael A. Campbell, St. Louis, MO, for respondent, St. Louis Coke & Foundry Supply Co.
Robert E. Eggmann III, Clayton, MO, for respondent, Score, Inc.
Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
The Drummond Company, Inc. ("Drum-mond") appeals from the trial court's grant of Southwest Bank's ("Bank") motion to dismiss counts VI and VII of its third amended petition. Drummond argues the tidal court erred in granting Bank's motion to dismiss because it properly pled facts supporting its claims of conversion and conspiracy. Specifically, Drummond argues that Bank converted funds, which were paid to and deposited by St. Louis Coke and Foundry ("SLCF") pursuant to an agreement between Drummond and SLCF, because SLCF then transferred the funds to Bank.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. No precedential or jurisprudential purposes would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. However, a memorandum has been provided to the parties, for their use only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).