Sewell v. MFA Mutual Insurance Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Stewart v. Kirkland

    929 S.W.2d 321 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 8 times
    In Stewart v. Kirkland, 929 S.W.2d 321, 323 (Mo. App. 1996), the court stated, after having stated that fraud is never presumed, that if the evidence presented at trial is as consistent with fraud as it is with honesty, the transaction will be deemed honest with all doubt resolved in favor of good faith.

    As the instructions complained of were not set forth in the argument portion of Defendant-Appellant's brief, as required by Rule 84.04(e), the alleged instruction error was not preserved for appellate review. Twin Bridges Const. Co., Inc. v. Ferner, 700 S.W.2d 534, 537 (Mo.App. 1985); Sewell v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co., 597 S.W.2d 284, 290 (Mo.App. 1980). We proceed then to whether a submissible case of fraud was made.

  2. Peck v. Jadwin

    704 S.W.2d 708 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 9 times

    A gratuitous examination of Instruction D in light of the record discloses no prejudicial error. Defendants' second point has no merit. Sewell v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co., 597 S.W.2d 284, 290[4] (Mo.App. 1980). The judgment is affirmed.