Silberman v. Evans

Missouri Court of Appeals

Silberman v. Evans

852 S.W.2d 203, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 688, 1993 WL 147011

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 11, 1993·No. No. WD 46506·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Alan Silberman, brought suit to collect on a promissory note issued by defendants, R.A. Evans and Kevin Iseman. The trial court found in favor of defendants at the close of all of the evidence. We affirm the trial court and hold consistent with the trial court’s judgment that plaintiff failed his burden of proving holder in due course status under the repealed § 400.3-307(3), RSMo 1986.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Alan Silberman, brought suit to collect on a promissory note issued by defendants, R.A. Evans and Kevin Iseman. The trial court found in favor of defendants at the close of all of the evidence. We affirm the trial court and hold consistent with the trial court’s judgment that plaintiff failed his burden of proving holder in due course status under the repealed § 400.3-307(3), RSMo 1986.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Silberman v. Evans, 852 S.W.2d 203, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 688, 1993 WL 147011 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

852 S.W.2d 203 (Silberman v. Evans) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.