T. A. Loving Co. v. Latham
| Decision Date | 02 August 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 7215SC144,7215SC144 |
| Citation | 15 N.C.App. 441,190 S.E.2d 248 |
| Parties | T. A. LOVING COMPANY v. James F. LATHAM et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Robert N. Robinson, Charlotte, for additional defendant, General Specialties Co., Inc., appellee.
Yarborough, Blanchard, Tucker & Denson by Irvin B. Tucker, Jr., Raleigh, for additional defendant, Partitions, Inc., appellee.
Haywood, Denny & Miller by Emery B. Denny, Jr., Chapel Hill, for additional defendants, James A. Smith & Son, and S. H. Basnight & Sons, appellees.
Brown, Brown & Brown by R. L. Brown, Jr., Albemarle, for additional defendant, Overdoors of the Carolinas, Inc., appellee.
Taylor, Allen, Warren & Kerr by W. Frank Taylor, Goldsboro, for additional defendants, W. H. Best & Sons, Inc., and Dewey Bros., Inc., appellees.
Adams, Kleemeier, Hagan, Hannah & Fouts by Clinton Eudy, Jr., Greensboro, for additional defendant, W. H. Sullivan Co., appellee.
Allen, Allen & Sternberg, by Louis C. Allen, Jr., Burlington, for additional defendants, Richard A. Robertson t/a Richard A. Robertson, Masonry Contractor, and Overman Cabinet and Supply Co., appellees.
Falk, Carruthers & Roth by Herbert S. Falk, Jr., Greensboro, for additional defendant, Greensboro Concrete & Construction Co., Inc., appellee.
Appellants contend they are entitled to have the disclaimers of appellees made 'irrevocable, permanent, and binding,' and that the order appealed from does not have this effect. They reason that the order is in favor of appellees, not against them, and from this somehow arrive at the conclusion that appellees are left free in the future to assert possible claims against them. We agree neither with appellants' reasoning nor with their conclusion.
While Judge Hobgood's order is in favor of appellees in the sense that it was entered in response to their motions made to obtain relief from the unwanted burden of continued participation in someone else's expensive lawsuit, it was nevertheless entirely binding upon them and effectively foreclosed them from asserting in the future any claims against appellants arising out of matters alleged in the pleadings. The order was based on appellees' solemn judicial admissions that they had no such claims. These judicial admissions are binding on appellees, Stansbury, N.C. Evidence 2d, § 116, p. 423, and established that no genuine issue as to any material fact existed insofar as the rights as between appellees and all other parties to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haislip v. Riggs
...913 (1943); Poultry Co. v. Oil Co., 272 N.C. 16, 157 S.E.2d 693 (1967). 285 N.C. at 319, 204 S.E.2d 829. In Loving Co. v. Latham, 15 N.C. App. 441, 190 S.E.2d 248 (1972), the North Carolina Court of Appeals said that "Matters determined by summary judgment, just as by any other judgment, ar......
-
Fulton v. Vickery
...summary judgment are considered final determinations on the merits and thus res judicata in subsequent actions, T.A. Loving Co. v. Latham, 15 N.C.App. 441, 190 S.E.2d 248 (1972), this doctrine is only applicable when there is an identity of parties, subject matter, and of issues. Kleibor v.......
-
Green v. Dixon
...122 N.C.App. 181, 183, 468 S.E.2d 575, 577, aff'd per curiam, 345 N.C. 177, 477 S.E.2d 926 (1996) (citing T.A. Loving Co. v. Latham, 15 N.C.App. 441, 444, 190 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1972)). Here, the third-party plaintiffs contend that the summary judgment in favor of third-party defendants in CO......
-
Evans v. Cowan
...concur. 1 A cause of action determined by an order for summary judgment is a final judgment on the merits. Loving Co. v. Latham, 15 N.C.App. 441, 444, 190 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1972). ...