Case Name: UNION SEVENTY PARTNERSHIP, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. MARK TWAIN BANK, Defendant/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1998-10-27
Citations: 983 S.W.2d 164
Docket Number: No. 73773
Parties: UNION SEVENTY PARTNERSHIP, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. MARK TWAIN BANK, Defendant/Respondent.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr. C.J., and CRANDALL and AHRENS, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 983
Pages: 164–164

Head Matter:
UNION SEVENTY PARTNERSHIP, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. MARK TWAIN BANK, Defendant/Respondent.
No. 73773.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Oct. 27, 1998.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 19, 1999.
Rexford H. Caruthers, Steven Dyer, St. Louis, for appellants.
E. Michael Murphy, Henry F. Luepke, St. Louis, for respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr. C.J., and CRANDALL and AHRENS, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs, Union Seventy Partnership, et al., appeal from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, Mark Twain Bank, in an action for breach of contract and misrepresentation.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and find that no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been provided with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.
The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).