Case Name: MACHINERY, INC., et. al., Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. HALE DESIGN/BUILD, INC., Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1998-03-03
Citations: 964 S.W.2d 853
Docket Number: No. 71841
Parties: MACHINERY, INC., et. al., Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. HALE DESIGN/BUILD, INC., Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before CRAHAN, C.J., and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J. and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 964
Pages: 853–853

Head Matter:
MACHINERY, INC., et. al., Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. HALE DESIGN/BUILD, INC., Defendant/Appellant.
No. 71841.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
March 3, 1998.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 29, 1997.
William James O’Herin, Florissant, for defendant/appellant.
Gregory P. White, Clayton, Richard Felix Huck, II, Michael Elliot Wilson, St. Louis, for plaintiffs/respondents.
Before CRAHAN, C.J., and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J. and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Subcontractor appeals the judgment granting motion to enforce its settlement with contractor and owner. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).