Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Citation
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Parent Document
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1987-12-22
Other Sections in This Document (33)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
Full Text
763 charsAppellants present three points which collectively argue that the trial court erred in failing to submit their claims for actual and punitive damages in conversion and in sustaining respondent’s motion for directed verdict. Although the trial court included a finding that appellants failed to make a case in conversion for want of proof of any misapplication of the funds, it is unnecessary to consider arguments on the merits of that ruling. The court’s concurrent finding that appellants’ cause of action was limited by § 535.300, RSMo 1986, was sufficient to support the decision. Whether appellants proved a diversion of the deposit to purposes other than that for which the deposit was given, as appellants discuss in the first point briefed, is immaterial.