Case Name: Virginia MATTINGLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary Pat COSTELLO, Defendant-Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1993-04-13
Citations: 850 S.W.2d 125
Docket Number: No. 61938
Parties: Virginia MATTINGLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary Pat COSTELLO, Defendant-Respondent.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and SMITH and STEPHAN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 850
Pages: 125–125

Head Matter:
Virginia MATTINGLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary Pat COSTELLO, Defendant-Respondent.
No. 61938.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
April 13, 1993.
James S. Collins, II, Camala C. Francis, Law Offices of James S. Collins, II, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.
Russell F. Watters, T. Michael Ward, Jer-ilyn Bowie Hill, Brown & James, P.C., St. Louis, for defendant-respondent.
Before GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and SMITH and STEPHAN, JJ.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in her favor of $1,000 for injuries allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. She premises error on questions to witnesses and to arguments of counsel. Objection was made to only one of the questions— defendant's occupation. Such a question is proper. Wilcox v. Coons, 362 Mo. 381, 241 S.W.2d 907 (Mo.1951) [17-19]. No objections were made to any of the other questions or to the arguments. Nothing has been preserved for review. There is no precedential value to an extended opinion. Judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.-16(b).