Maddox v. Andy's Refrigeration & Motor Service Co.
| Decision Date | 24 May 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 2541.,2541. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Luther Robinson MADDOX, Appellant, v. ANDY'S REFRIGERATION & MOTOR SERVICE CO., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Appellee. |
Marie Flynn Maddox, Washington, D. C., with whom Luther Robinson Maddox, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Before ROVER, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.
The question presented on this appeal is whether appellant's claim was barred by the statute of limitations.1 The trial court, in granting appellee's motion to dismiss, held that it was.
Appellant filed his complaint on August 13, 1959.2 An amended complaint was filed on September 15, 1959. It consisted of two counts, the first for breach of contract, and the second for fraud.3 From the complaint, the following essential facts emerge:
On April 10, 1956, appellant contracted with appellee for the repair of his refrigerator. When the work was completed, the refrigerator was returned to appellant on April 13, 1956, and he then made payment. Appellant alleges that "after placing the [refrigerator] in operation, that it was in no better condition than when it was taken away for repairs * * *." The work performed by appellee carried a ninety-day guarantee.
Assuming, as we must, that the repair work was improperly performed, it is clear that appellant cannot maintain his first count, and this is true whether the action arose on April 13, 1956, or ninety days thereafter. We have said that the owner's mere lack of knowledge of injury to his property will not prevent the statute from running.4 Obviously, one who knew his contract was breached because he had knowledge that his property remained in a state of disrepair, may not wait more than three years to assert his remedy. Again, appellant knew of the breach of contract on April 13, 1956, but did not file suit until August 13, 1959.
Turning to the second count, appellant says it is one for fraud. However, it is basically a restatement of the facts enumerated in the first count. The crux of this claim is that the "fraud" was not discovered until August 14, 1956, the date on which appellant's "suspicions were confirmed." That is, on that date another repair service informed him as to the specific nature of the disrepair.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diamond v. Davis
...412 A.2d 1187, 1193 (D.C.1980); Weisberg, supra, 390 A.2d at 996; King, supra note 4, 391 A.2d at 1186; Maddox v. Andy's Refrigeration & Motor Serv. Co., 160 A.2d 799, 800 (D.C.1960); White v. Piano Mart, Inc., 110 A.2d 542, 543 (D.C.1955); Poole, supra, 84 A.2d at 700; Kraft v. Lowe, 77 A.......
-
DIAMOND v. DAVIS
...412 A.2d 1187, 1193 (D.C. 1980); Weisberg, supra, 390 A.2d at 996; King, supra note 4, 391 A.2d at 1186; Maddox v. Andy's Refrigeration & Motor Serv. Co., 160 A.2d 799, 800 (D.C. 1960); White v. Piano Mart, Inc., 110 A.2d 542, 543 (D.C. 1955); Poole, supra, 84 A.2d at 700; Kraft v. Lowe, 77......
-
William J. Davis, Inc. v. Young
...International Ladies' Garment Workers Union v. NLRB, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 71, 463 F.2d 907 (1972); Maddox v. Andy's Refrigeration & Motor Service Co., D.C. Mun.App., 160 A.2d 799 (1960). Generally the defendant must have done something of an affirmative nature designed to prevent discovery of t......
-
Doolin v. Environmental Power Ltd.
...misrepresentation, from the time the parties could have discovered the fraud or misrepresentation. See Maddox v. Andy's Refrigeration & Motor Co., D. C.Mun.App., 160 A.2d 799, 800 (1960); Wiren v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 92 U. S.App.D.C. 347, 348-49, 206 F.2d 465, 467 (1953), cert. denied......