Opinion ID: 1615292
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: limitation of action bar against the defendants

Text: We likewise find the contention that the Hickoxes' legal malpractice claim was barred by the three-year statute on all contracts, Miss.Code.Ann. § 15-1-29, as opposed to the general six-year statute on torts, Miss.Code.Ann. § 15-1-49, equally unpersuasive. Although the claim in this case arose by virtue of an oral contract, this cause of action is based upon the negligence of the attorney, and is governed by the six-year statute. Hutchinson v. Smith, 417 So.2d 926 (Miss. 1982). The defendants assert this is a pre-rules case, and they pleaded the three-year statute. Because of this and because of the plaintiffs' failure to respond to this claim, the defense argues that the three-year statute should govern. Under the pleadings in this case, it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to reply to defendants' plea. See: Guthrie v. Merchants Nat. Bank of Mobile, 254 Miss. 532, 180 So.2d 309 (1965); Anderson v. Laurel Oil Co. & Fertilizer Co., 228 Miss. 95, 87 So.2d 556 (1956). Moreover, there was never any factual issue upon which the three-year statute could have been predicated. We do not find the grounds argued by the defendants to support the directed verdict meritorious.