Case Name: SEIGEL & WOLFF, P.C., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. DANIEL SCHMITT & CO., Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1998-12-22
Citations: 985 S.W.2d 373
Docket Number: No. 73767
Parties: SEIGEL & WOLFF, P.C., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. DANIEL SCHMITT & CO., Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before MARY K. HOFF, P.J. and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 985
Pages: 373–373

Head Matter:
SEIGEL & WOLFF, P.C., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. DANIEL SCHMITT & CO., Defendant/Appellant.
No. 73767.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Dec. 22, 1998.
Christopher W. Dysart, Law Office of Christopher W. Dysart, Swansea, IL, for appellant.
Seigel & Wolff, P.C., Michael A. Wolff, Charles A. Seigel, III, St. Louis, for respondent.
Before MARY K. HOFF, P.J. and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Daniel Schmitt & Co. appeals from the trial court's judgment entered after a jury verdict in favor of Seigel & Wolff, P.C. on its Petition for Damages seeking monetary relief for breach of contract and in quantum meruit.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The evidence in support of the jury verdict is not insufficient. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).