Bridgman v. Drilling
| Decision Date | 16 April 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-9479,4-9479 |
| Citation | 218 Ark. 772,238 S.W.2d 645 |
| Parties | BRIDGMAN v. DRILLING. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Charley Eddy, Morrilton, for appellant.
Gordon & Gordon, Morrilton, for appellee.
Appellee, C. W. Drilling, Jr., operates the Farmers Exchange, a retail grocery and feed store at Morrilton, Arkansas. On October 15, 1949 he filed a complaint in the Conway Circuit Court seeking judgment against appellant, W. A. Bridgman, in the sum of $516.83 on an open account for merchandise allegedly purchased 'during the years from 1940 to 1946'. Summons was issued on February 24, 1950 and served on appellant the next day.
On April 8, 1950 appellant filed an answer containing a general denial, alleging that he had not traded with appellee since 1945 and specifically pleading the three-year statute of limitations, Ark.Stats. § 37-206, as a bar to the action.
On October 2, 1950 appellee filed an amendment to the complaint alleging that appellant made the last payment on the account on June 23, 1947 in the amount of $15.30. On the same date appellant filed a demurrer to the complaint pleading the statute of limitations. The trial court treated the demurrer as a motion to make more definite and certain and permitted the filing of the amendment to the complaint by appellee. Appellant renewed his demurrer to the complaint as amended and the demurrer was overruled.
At the trial appellee introduced the original sales and credit tickets showing the last items to have been purchased by appellant on December 19, 1946 and the last payment on the account of $15.30 on June 23, 1947. Appellant testified that he had not traded with appellee since 1945 and denied making the $15.30 payment. The jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee for $516.83 and this appeal is from the judgment based thereon.
Appellant insists that the trial court erred in overruling the demurrer to the complaint and the amendment thereto and in refusing to direct a verdict in his favor. It is argued that the amendment to the complaint of October 2, 1950, not having been filed within three years from June 23, 1947, the date of the last payment alleged therein, was barred by the statute of limitations when filed because the amendment introduced a new cause of action to which appellant was entitled to plead the statute separately. In overruling this contention the trial court ruled that the amendment to the complaint did not constitute a new cause of action, but related back and became a part of the original complaint.
Our cases hold that where there is an amendment to a complaint stating a new cause of action or bringing in new parties interested in the controversy, the statute of limitations runs to the date of the amendment and operates as a bar when the statutory period of limitation has already expired. In other words, if the plaintiff amends his complaint after commencement of the suit by introducing a new cause of action, the statute continues to run until the filing of the amendment which does not relate back to the commencement of the suit. Wood v. Wood, 59 Ark. 441, 27 S.W. 641, 28 L.R.A. 157; Buck v. Davis, 64 Ark. 345, 42 S.W. 534; Love v. Couch, 181 Ark. 994, 28 S.W.2d 1067. If, however, the amendment to the complaint does not set forth a new cause of action but is merely an expansion or amplification of the cause of action already stated, then the amendment relates back and takes effect as of the date of the commencement of the original action. Little Rock Traction & Electric Co. v. Miller, 80 Ark. 245, 96 S.W. 993; Western Coal & Mining Co. v. Corkville, 96 Ark. 387, 131 S.W. 963.
In the case of Paris Purity Coal Co. v. Pendergrass, 193 Ark. 1031, 104 S.W.2d 455, 456, we approved the rule stated in 37 C.J. 1068 as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larson Mach., Inc. v. Wallace
...continued to run until the Wallaces filed their "Complaint against Third- Party Defendant," relying upon such cases as Bridgman v. Drilling, 218 Ark. 772, 238 S.W.2d 645, where third party practice was not involved. However logical Oakley's arguments may seem, they are inconsistent with a p......
-
Williams v. Edmondson
...the first summons was issued. This case was cited with approval in King v. Circuit Court of Conway County, supra; Bridgman v. Drilling, 218 Ark. 772, 238 S.W.2d 645 (1951). It is the issuance of a summons and placing it in the hands of the sheriff of the proper county, not its service, that......
-
Schott v. Colonial Baking Co.
...that a civil action is commenced by the filing of a complaint and causing a summons to be issued thereon. See also, Bridgman v. Drilling, 218 Ark. 772, 775, 238 S.W.2d 645. The purported issue and service of summons on the Arkansas Motor Freight Lines, Inc., which service was quashed by the......
-
Beam v. Monsanto Co., Inc.
...of deceit expressed in their first or second counterclaim and not an introduction of a new cause of action. Bridgman v. Drilling, 218 Ark. 772, 238 S.W.2d 645 (1951). We are of the opinion that the amendment of September 10, 1973, stated a new cause of action and the trial court was correct......