Case Name: WILLIAM BOUDOURES, CO., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. George H. KISTER, et al., Respondent/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2006-05-30
Citations: 196 S.W.3d 65
Docket Number: No. ED 86565
Parties: WILLIAM BOUDOURES, CO., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. George H. KISTER, et al., Respondent/Appellant.
Judges: Before MARY K. HOFF, P. J. and CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J. and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 196
Pages: 65–65

Head Matter:
WILLIAM BOUDOURES, CO., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. George H. KISTER, et al., Respondent/Appellant.
No. ED 86565.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
May 30, 2006.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 18, 2006.
Daniel P. Card II, Beetem & Card LLC, Jefferson City, MO, for appellant.
JoAnn T. Sandifer, Caroline L. Hermel-ing, Husch & Eppenberger, LLC, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before MARY K. HOFF, P. J. and CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J. and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
George H. Kister, individually and in his representative capacity as the Managing Partner of the Paddock-Mayfair Partnership, appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of William Boudoures Company, (Boudoures) in Boudoures' breach of contract action seeking to recover a broker's commission.
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. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment in accordance with 84.16(b).