Title: McGruder v. B & L Construction Company, Inc.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

303 So. 2d 103 (1974)
Ella C. McGRUDER
v.
B & L CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., et al., etc.
SC 861.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
October 24, 1974.
Rehearing Denied December 5, 1974.
J. Wm. Thomason, Bessemer, for appellant.
*104 Dewayne N. Morris, Birmingham, for appellees M. E. Brown and B & L Construction Co.
H. Powell Lipscomb, III, Bessemer, for appellee Helen R. Justice.
MERRILL, Justice.
This appeal is from a judgment dismissing the complaint because "the statute of limitations had run."
Plaintiff-appellant filed her suit on October 18, 1973, charging that the defendants, M. E. Brown and B & L Construction Company, had breached a contract to repair her house in that the repairs were not done in a workmanlike manner; that she and her deceased husband had executed a note and mortgage to secure the payment for the work in the amount of $3,200.00; that she had paid the monthly installments of $38.00 from August 19, 1967, the date of the contract and the mortgage, until May 1, 1973. The complaint also charged fraud. The contract and the mortgage were made exhibits to the complaint.
The defendants, Brown and B & L Construction Co., filed a motion to dismiss, one of the grounds being that the "complaint shows on its face that the contract allegedly entered into was made on August 19, 1967, and the lawsuit was not filed within six years from the date thereof, and this suit is barred by the statute of limitations. (Title 7, Section 21, Code of Alabama)." The motion was granted after a hearing and this appeal followed.
Actions founded on promises in writing not under seal must be commenced within six years, Tit. 7, § 21, Code 1940. Six years from August 19, 1967 would be August 19, 1973. The suit was not filed until October 18, 1973. These facts were shown on the face of the complaint.
In J. M. Blythe Motor Lines Corporation v. Blalock, 310 F.2d 77 (5th Cir. 1962), the court said in part:
Here, the gravamen of the charge was breach of a contract. The monthly installments provided for in the contract were paid by plaintiff for over five years. Under the federal decisions, the trial court correctly dismissed the suit as barred by the statute of limitations after the motion to dismiss for that reason had been filed and heard. This suit was filed subsequent to the effective date of ARCP. The applicable rule is ARCP 12(b)(6), which provides that a motion to dismiss may, at the option of the pleader, be made for "(6) *105 failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."
In Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1357, p. 608, the following appears:
To the same effect is 2 Moore, Fed.Practice, § 12.10, p. 2314.
We are not to be understood as holding that every case should be dismissed on motion when the complaint shows on its face that the statute of limitations has run. There are several exceptions in our law. Two examples are Tit. 7, § 34 defendant absent from the state, and § 36infants, incompetents and prisoners. The exceptions do not apply here because there was a hearing on the motion to dismiss and the record shows no request, attempt or desire of the plaintiff to amend.
We do note that a motion for a summary judgment might, in some cases, be the safer method. Early federal cases construing Rule 12(b)(6) held that a complaint could not be attacked by motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). We now quote from Wright & Miller, supra, Civil § 1357, p. 607:
Appellant's assignment 4 charges error in dismissing the complaint as to defendant Helen R. Justice. It was averred that the defendants, M. E. Brown and B & L Construction Co. transferred the note and mortgage to Helen R. Justice. It is true that Helen R. Justice did not move for a dismissal but had moved that the cause be transferred to the Birmingham Division from the Bessemer Division.
If the cause of action is barred as to the two defendants who moved to dismiss on that ground, and if the court properly dismissed it, there was no prejudice to appellant simply because Helen R. Justice did not also move for the dismissal. Supreme Court Rule 45.
Affirmed.
HEFLIN, C. J., and HARWOOD, MADDOX and FAULKNER, JJ., concur.