Myers, Perry, Ossman & Copeland, P. C. v. Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Myers, Perry, Ossman & Copeland, P. C. v. Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co.

615 S.W.2d 99, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 2757

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 13, 1981

DocketNo. 12024

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 615 S.W.2d 99 (Myers, Perry, Ossman & Copeland, P. C. v. Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Myers, Perry, Ossman & Copeland, P. C. v. Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co., 615 S.W.2d 99, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 2757 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

BILLINGS, Judge.

Suit by legal professional corporation to recover attorney fees for services rendered. The trial court found the issues in favor of plaintiff and entered judgment. Defendant contends the account was paid and questions plaintiff’s standing to sue. We affirm.

Our review is governed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976), and the judgment is to be affirmed unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law. We defer to the trial judge on the credibility of the witnesses and his resolution of conflicting testimony. Rule 73.01, V.A.M.R.; Dambach v. James, 587 S.W.2d 640 (Mo.App.1979); Dickey v. Johnson, 532 S.W.2d 487 (Mo.App.1975). No findings of fact or conclusions of law were requested or made and we deem all factual issues to have been found in accordance with the result reached. Stamme v. Stamme, 589 S.W.2d 50 (Mo.App.1979).

We have reviewed the record, viewed the exhibits, and read the briefs of the parties. [100]*100There is no dispute plaintiff, a professional corporation in good standing, performed the legal services. There is no dispute that the charges of plaintiff to defendant for the legal services were fair and reasonable. Defendant’s president admitted he had not paid plaintiff but had issued a check for the amount of the balance owing to William H. Perry III, individually, his son and a former member of plaintiff, after plaintiff filed this suit, and at the request of William H. Perry III.¹ There was no competent evidence that defendant was authorized to pay the balance owing to anyone other than the plaintiff. There was substantial evidence to the contrary. No error of law appears and an extended opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

All concur.

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

BILLINGS, Judge.

Suit by legal professional corporation to recover attorney fees for services rendered. The trial court found the issues in favor of plaintiff and entered judgment. Defendant contends the account was paid and questions plaintiff’s standing to sue. We affirm.

Our review is governed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976), and the judgment is to be affirmed unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law. We defer to the trial judge on the credibility of the witnesses and his resolution of conflicting testimony. Rule 73.01, V.A.M.R.; Dambach v. James, 587 S.W.2d 640 (Mo.App.1979); Dickey v. Johnson, 532 S.W.2d 487 (Mo.App.1975). No findings of fact or conclusions of law were requested or made and we deem all factual issues to have been found in accordance with the result reached. Stamme v. Stamme, 589 S.W.2d 50 (Mo.App.1979).

We have reviewed the record, viewed the exhibits, and read the briefs of the parties. [100]*100There is no dispute plaintiff, a professional corporation in good standing, performed the legal services. There is no dispute that the charges of plaintiff to defendant for the legal services were fair and reasonable. Defendant’s president admitted he had not paid plaintiff but had issued a check for the amount of the balance owing to William H. Perry III, individually, his son and a former member of plaintiff, after plaintiff filed this suit, and at the request of William H. Perry III.¹ There was no competent evidence that defendant was authorized to pay the balance owing to anyone other than the plaintiff. There was substantial evidence to the contrary. No error of law appears and an extended opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

615 S.W.2d 99, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 2757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myers-perry-ossman-copeland-p-c-v-cardinal-scale-manufacturing-co-moctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack