Burks v. Beebe
| Decision Date | 26 February 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Citation | 578 S.W.2d 298 |
| Parties | Charles W. BURKS et al., Respondents, v. Ammon BEEBE et al., Appellants. 29438. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
James A. Christenson, Independence, for appellants.
Cedric Siegfried, Robert J. Wise and James Russell Ford, Independence, for respondents.
Before HIGGINS, Special Judge, Presiding, PRITCHARD, J., and WELBORN, Special Judge.
Respondents' action for damages for breach of contract arising from purchase of a ten acre parcel of land. Case tried without jury and trial court awarded Respondents $1,800.00 in damages.
Parties entered into an agreement whereby Appellants agreed to sell and Respondents agreed to purchase a parcel of land. A written agreement was entered into the record without objection. Said agreement contained the following language, " * * * all trees that have been cut preparatory to building a dam and constructing a lake site will be removed at no extra cost to property owner."
Appellants collectively are a partnership and their negotiating partner, one Allan Van Tuyl, died after date of the contract, but prior to trial. Appellants denied that the action of the deceased partner bound Appellants to this part of the contract. From the record, it is apparent the parties discussed the trees on various occasions, but the matter remained unresolved.
Respondents then proceeded to remove the trees, encountering the cost of a tractor, the cost of its repair, a tractor scoop and chain saws in the total sum of $1,235.95. In addition, Respondents testified to expending 2,000 man hours of labor. Respondents claimed damages in the sum of $1,800.00, which were awarded by the trial court.
On May 10, 1978, while said cause was pending on appeal, Respondents filed their motion for damages on account of frivolous appeal, to which Appellants replied on May 16, 1978. Points raised by Appellants, along with Respondents' motion, are taken up together herein.
Appellants raise two points.
"The court erred in holding that a valid legal contract existed between Appellants and Respondents."
Appellants' brief violates Rule 84.04(d) on both points upon failure to specify why the trial court was in error.
As to point I, Appellants totally fail to say why the trial court erred in holding the contract in question, a legally valid contract. On point II, Appellants totally fail to say why the trial court erred in rendering judgment and that same was against the weight of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Talley
...seine the argument portion of a brief or transcript on appeal to ascertain the whereins and whys of claimed errors." Burks v. Beebe, 578 S.W.2d 298, 299 (Mo. App. W.D.1979) (citing Griffith v. State, 504 S.W.2d 324, 327 (Mo.App. Even if this Court were to grant an ex gratia review of Defend......
-
Pickett v. Stockard
...was in error. That the requirements of Rule 84.04(d) are mandatory, see Bell v. Bell, 538 S.W.2d 733 (Mo.App.1976) and Burks v. Beebe, 578 S.W.2d 298 (Mo.App. 1979). Point (1) is further ruled against appellants for the reason that this court is not at liberty to rule upon the weight of the......
-
Ohlendorf v. Feinstein
...appeal. See Wissmann v. German Evangelical St. Marcus Congregation of St. Louis, 612 S.W.2d 138, 141 (Mo.App.1980); Burks v. Beebe, 578 S.W.2d 298, 299 (Mo.App.1979); Hutchinson Brothers Inc. v. R.H. Brownsberger, 624 S.W.2d 538, 541 (Mo.App.1981). Therefore, Ohlendorf's request for damages......
-
Delozier v. Munlake Const. Co.
...for condemning an appeal as frivolous have been stated. Ravenscroft v. Ravenscroft, 585 S.W.2d 270 (Mo.App.1979); Burks v. Beebe, 578 S.W.2d 298 (Mo.App.1979). The position of the appellants has been steadfast from initial hearing through this appeal. While their arguments were unfounded, t......