Case Name: Larry D. COMPTON, Plaintiff/Respondent, and L.D. Compton Building Materials, A Missouri Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Emil A. STANGE and Lillie Mae Stange, His Wife, Defendants/Appellants, First State Bank of Farmington, and Milton Schnebelen, Defendants
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1994-05-03
Citations: 874 S.W.2d 562
Docket Number: No. 63329
Parties: Larry D. COMPTON, Plaintiff/Respondent, and L.D. Compton Building Materials, A Missouri Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Emil A. STANGE and Lillie Mae Stange, His Wife, Defendants/Appellants, First State Bank of Farmington, and Milton Schnebelen, Defendants.
Judges: Before CARL R. GAERTNER, P.J., and SIMON and CRANE, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 874
Pages: 562–563

Head Matter:
Larry D. COMPTON, Plaintiff/Respondent, and L.D. Compton Building Materials, A Missouri Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Emil A. STANGE and Lillie Mae Stange, His Wife, Defendants/Appellants, First State Bank of Farmington, and Milton Schnebelen, Defendants.
No. 63329.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Southern Division.
May 3, 1994.
Michael P. Cullen, Chesterfield, Thomas L. Ray, Jr., Colson, Wagner & Ray, Farming-ton, for defendants, appellants.
Geoffrey L. Pratte, Farmington, for plaintiff, respondent.
Before CARL R. GAERTNER, P.J., and SIMON and CRANE, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendants appeal from a judgment on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff on his claim in quantum meruit for services rendered as construction manager of a motel and restaurant complex owned by defendants. We affirm.
The trial court's judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).