Drummond Co. v. St. Louis Coke & Foundry Supply Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Drummond Co. v. St. Louis Coke & Foundry Supply Co.

122 S.W.3d 723, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 2060, 2003 WL 22998183

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Drummond Co. v. St. Louis Coke & Foundry Supply Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1515 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 23, 2003·No. No. ED 82835·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Drummond Company, Inc. (“Drum-mond”) appeals from the trial court’s grant of Southwest Bank’s (“Bank”) motion to dismiss counts VI and VII of its third amended petition. Drummond argues the tidal court erred in granting Bank’s motion to dismiss because it properly pled facts supporting its claims of conversion and conspiracy. Specifically, Drummond argues that Bank converted funds, which were paid to and deposited by St. Louis Coke and Foundry (“SLCF”) pursuant to an agreement between Drummond and SLCF, because SLCF then transferred the funds to Bank.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. No precedential or jurisprudential purposes would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and [724]*724restating the principles of law. However, a memorandum has been provided to the parties, for their use only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Drummond Company, Inc. (“Drum-mond”) appeals from the trial court’s grant of Southwest Bank’s (“Bank”) motion to dismiss counts VI and VII of its third amended petition. Drummond argues the tidal court erred in granting Bank’s motion to dismiss because it properly pled facts supporting its claims of conversion and conspiracy. Specifically, Drummond argues that Bank converted funds, which were paid to and deposited by St. Louis Coke and Foundry (“SLCF”) pursuant to an agreement between Drummond and SLCF, because SLCF then transferred the funds to Bank.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. No precedential or jurisprudential purposes would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and [724]*724restating the principles of law. However, a memorandum has been provided to the parties, for their use only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Drummond Co. v. St. Louis Coke & Foundry Supply Co., 122 S.W.3d 723, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 2060, 2003 WL 22998183 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

122 S.W.3d 723 (Drummond Co. v. St. Louis Coke & Foundry Supply Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.