Case Name: PAUL LONDE, INC., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Sheldon ENGER, Leslie Borowsky, Barry Worth, Melvin Goldstein, and P. Granville Mitchell, Defendants/Appellants, and Carl J. Carlie and Harvey Stone, Co-Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1993-02-16
Citations: 846 S.W.2d 260
Docket Number: No. 55709
Parties: PAUL LONDE, INC., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Sheldon ENGER, Leslie Borowsky, Barry Worth, Melvin Goldstein, and P. Granville Mitchell, Defendants/Appellants, and Carl J. Carlie and Harvey Stone, Co-Respondents.
Judges: Before CRANDALL, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GRIMM, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 846
Pages: 260–261

Head Matter:
PAUL LONDE, INC., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Sheldon ENGER, Leslie Borowsky, Barry Worth, Melvin Goldstein, and P. Granville Mitchell, Defendants/Appellants, and Carl J. Carlie and Harvey Stone, Co-Respondents.
No. 55709.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Feb. 16, 1993.
Burton M. Greenberg, Greenberg, Pie-ban, Fleming & Simons, St. Louis, for appellant.
Edwin D. Akers, Jr., Thomas J. Campbell, St. Louis, for respondent.
Before CRANDALL, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GRIMM, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff sued defendants on a .promissory note. The jury found in favor of plaintiff, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly.
Five of the defendants appealed. Thereafter, defendants Leslie Borowsky and Melvin Goldstein voluntarily dismissed their appeals. The appeal of Barry Worth was dismissed as moot following his discharge in bankruptcy. Thus, only the appeals of Sheldon Enger and P. Granville Mitchell remain.
The evidence in support of the jury's verdict is sufficient to support the verdict, and no error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value.
The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).