Davis v. General Motors Corp.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Davis v. General Motors Corp.

521 S.W.2d 214, 257 Ark. 983, 1975 Ark. LEXIS 1893

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedApril 14, 1975

Docket74-351

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 521 S.W.2d 214 (Davis v. General Motors Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. General Motors Corp., 521 S.W.2d 214, 257 Ark. 983, 1975 Ark. LEXIS 1893 (Ark. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Georoe Rose Smith, Justice.

Smart Chevrolet Company, after having repossessed and resold a car which it had originally sold to McArthur Davis, brought this suit against Davis for a deficiency judgment. Davis filed a counterclaim against Smart (the dealer) and a third-party complaint against General Motors Corporation (the manufacturer), asserting breaches of warranty. General Motors succeeded, upon the pleadings alone, in obtaining a dismissal of the third-party complaint against it. This appeal is from the order of dismissal. Inasmuch as that order affects a substantial right and strikes a pleading, it is an appealable order within the terms of the statute. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-2101 (Supp. 1973).

The dismissal came about in this way: The original summons was served upon Davis on April 10, 1974. On April 24 Davis filed an answer to the complaint, a counterclaim against Smart, and a motion “pursuant to Arkansas Statutes, Section 34-1007,” for leave to make General Motors a party and to serve a summons and third-party complaint upon that corporation. On April 30 the trial court entered an order which, without making any reference to the statutes, directed that General Motors be made a party to the case. On May 6 Davis filed his third-party complaint against General Motors, seeking damages for breach of warranty. Counsel for General Motors, in asking that Davis’s third-party complaint be dismissed, pointed out that Davis’s motion of April 24 had cited a section of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-1007 (Repl. 1962). Counsel asserted that General Motors was not a joint tortfeasor and that the third-party complaint should therefore be stricken.

The motion to strike the third-party complaint should have been denied. Obviously Davis’s motion for leave to bring in General Motors was in error in its reference to the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, because Davis was asserting a cause of action against General Motors, not a claim for contribution. The third-party complaint itself made that fact perfectly clear. Davis was entitled to file that pleading. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-1134.1 (Supp. 1973). There is no possibility whatever that General Motors was misled by the superfluous reference to the Uniform Act. The error must therefore be disregarded, as it does not affect the substantial rights of General Motors. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-1160 (Repl. 1962).

Reversed.

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

Georoe Rose Smith, Justice.

Smart Chevrolet Company, after having repossessed and resold a car which it had originally sold to McArthur Davis, brought this suit against Davis for a deficiency judgment. Davis filed a counterclaim against Smart (the dealer) and a third-party complaint against General Motors Corporation (the manufacturer), asserting breaches of warranty. General Motors succeeded, upon the pleadings alone, in obtaining a dismissal of the third-party complaint against it. This appeal is from the order of dismissal. Inasmuch as that order affects a substantial right and strikes a pleading, it is an appealable order within the terms of the statute. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-2101 (Supp. 1973).

The dismissal came about in this way: The original summons was served upon Davis on April 10, 1974. On April 24 Davis filed an answer to the complaint, a counterclaim against Smart, and a motion “pursuant to Arkansas Statutes, Section 34-1007,” for leave to make General Motors a party and to serve a summons and third-party complaint upon that corporation. On April 30 the trial court entered an order which, without making any reference to the statutes, directed that General Motors be made a party to the case. On May 6 Davis filed his third-party complaint against General Motors, seeking damages for breach of warranty. Counsel for General Motors, in asking that Davis’s third-party complaint be dismissed, pointed out that Davis’s motion of April 24 had cited a section of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-1007 (Repl. 1962). Counsel asserted that General Motors was not a joint tortfeasor and that the third-party complaint should therefore be stricken.

The motion to strike the third-party complaint should have been denied. Obviously Davis’s motion for leave to bring in General Motors was in error in its reference to the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, because Davis was asserting a cause of action against General Motors, not a claim for contribution. The third-party complaint itself made that fact perfectly clear. Davis was entitled to file that pleading. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-1134.1 (Supp. 1973). There is no possibility whatever that General Motors was misled by the superfluous reference to the Uniform Act. The error must therefore be disregarded, as it does not affect the substantial rights of General Motors. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-1160 (Repl. 1962).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

521 S.W.2d 214, 257 Ark. 983, 1975 Ark. LEXIS 1893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-general-motors-corp-ark-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack