Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

22 N.C. App. 75

Hartness v. Penny

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · decided 1974-06-05

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1996

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1974-06-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

VAUGHN, Judge.

¶1It was error to grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

¶2Plaintiff’s theory is that the mailing of the account to defendant converted the account from an open account to an account stated. At this stage of the proceeding, this contention must fail for there is no showing when the account was mailed. It could have been mailed the day before Harris died. For that reason, there can be no presumption that Harris examined the account and accepted it as correct. We also note that the mere éntry showing a payment by Medicare on 6 May 1972, would not, standing alone and as a matter of law, constitute a payment by the debtor which would toll the statute of limitations.

¶3The judgment granting plaintiff’s motion is reversed, and the case is remanded.

¶4Reversed and remanded.

Judges Parker and Carson concur.
/22/ncapp/75 · .json · Public domain