Bradley v. Lewis Motors, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Bradley v. Lewis Motors, Inc.

184 S.E.2d 397, 12 N.C. App. 685, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1435

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 17, 1971

Docket7127DC710

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 184 S.E.2d 397 (Bradley v. Lewis Motors, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bradley v. Lewis Motors, Inc., 184 S.E.2d 397, 12 N.C. App. 685, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1435 (N.C. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

BRITT, Judge.

Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Ford? We hold that it did not.

Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56 (c). Lee v. Shor, 10 N.C. App. 231, 178 S.E. 2d 101 (1970). For the reasons stated by us in State v. Aircraft Corp., 9 N.C. App. 557, 176 S.E. 2d 796 (1970), we think plaintiff’s claim for relief alleged against defendant Ford accrued on 18 January 1967 when she purchased the Mustang, which date was more than three years prior to the date she instituted this action. The pleadings show *687 that defendant Ford was entitled to summary judgment on its plea of the three years statute of limitations.

We are aware of the proviso of Chapter 1157 of the 1971 Session Laws, codified as G.S. 1-15 (b); however, Section 2 of the act provides that it shall become effective upon ratification and shall not affect pending litigation. The act was ratified on 21 July 1971, some 60 days after this action was instituted.

The judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.

Judges Brock and Vaughn concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BRITT, Judge.

Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Ford? We hold that it did not.

Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56 (c). Lee v. Shor, 10 N.C. App. 231, 178 S.E. 2d 101 (1970). For the reasons stated by us in State v. Aircraft Corp., 9 N.C. App. 557, 176 S.E. 2d 796 (1970), we think plaintiff’s claim for relief alleged against defendant Ford accrued on 18 January 1967 when she purchased the Mustang, which date was more than three years prior to the date she instituted this action. The pleadings show *687 that defendant Ford was entitled to summary judgment on its plea of the three years statute of limitations.

We are aware of the proviso of Chapter 1157 of the 1971 Session Laws, codified as G.S. 1-15 (b); however, Section 2 of the act provides that it shall become effective upon ratification and shall not affect pending litigation. The act was ratified on 21 July 1971, some 60 days after this action was instituted.

The judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.

Judges Brock and Vaughn concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 S.E.2d 397, 12 N.C. App. 685, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-v-lewis-motors-inc-ncctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack