Legal Opinion

Dixon v. Brannan

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided June 2, 1998No. 72537PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KAROHL, Judge.

D.H. Dixon, as payee and holder of a promissory note, sued Harrell E. Brannan for the unpaid balance. The case was tried to the court. At the close of the evidence, the court requested proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment. The request was honored by both parties. The court took the case under submission “upon said evidence, testimony and findings of fact and conclusions of law.” However, it made no findings or conclusions when it entered judgment. The judgment consisted of a simple statement finding for Brannan. Dixon’s argument on appeal is that the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Murphy v. CarronSupreme Court of Missouri · 1976
  2. Helton Const. Co., Inc. v. ThriftMissouri Court of Appeals · 1993
  3. Corporate Interiors, Inc. v. RandazzoMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996
  4. Mark Twain Bank v. JacksonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1995

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Gill Construction, Inc. v. 18th & Vine AuthorityMissouri Court of Appeals · 2005
  2. IOS Capital, Inc. v. JacobiMissouri Court of Appeals · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API