752 S.W.2d 403 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1988
Following jury trial plaintiffs appeal from a judgment awarding defendants $5000 in damages. The facts and nature of this action are set forth in two earlier appeals. Maupin v. Bearden, 643 S.W.2d 860 (Mo.App.1982); Maupin v. Bearden, 708 S.W.2d 799 (Mo.App.1986).
Although both points in appellants’ brief claim that an instruction was erroneous, that instruction is not set forth in the argument portion of the brief or otherwise included in the brief. Rule 84.04(e) states in part that “[i]f a point relates to the giving, refusal or modification of an instruction such instruction shall be set forth in full in the argument portion of the brief.” Failing to set forth an instruction in the brief as required by Rule 84.04(e) does not preserve a contention regarding the instruction for appellate review. Wilson v. Bi-State Development Agency, 642 S.W.2d 702 (Mo.App.1982); Stegan v. H.W. Freeman Const. Co., 637 S.W.2d 794, 797 (Mo.App.1982).
As nothing has been preserved for appellate review and no plain error is present, the judgment is affirmed.