{
  "id": 8556290,
  "name": "THE PLANTERS NATIONAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. DALE RUSH and wife, MARY SUE RUSH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Planters National Bank & Trust Co. v. Rush",
  "decision_date": "1973-03-14",
  "docket_number": "No. 7319SC117",
  "first_page": "564",
  "last_page": "567",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "17 N.C. App. 564"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "182 S.E. 2d 21",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 N.C. App. 483",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555761
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/11/0483-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 293,
    "char_count": 5262,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.546,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5705300086993116e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6786125368699102
    },
    "sha256": "84e982e4287a3f9e9b261c16f0ae2c88b2df5e05b143a99ed3de4477ce8e8892",
    "simhash": "1:df2242b60ecdf88b",
    "word_count": 891
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:57.402584+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Graham concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "THE PLANTERS NATIONAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. DALE RUSH and wife, MARY SUE RUSH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Judge.\nDefendants assign as error plaintiff\u2019s failure to comply with Rule 56(c) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure which provides in part: \u201cThe motion shall be served at least 10 days before the time fixed for the hearing. The adverse party prior to the day of hearing may serve opposing affidavits.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nRule 6(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides:\n\u201cIn computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules . . . the day of the act, event, default or publication after which the designated period of time begins to run is not to be included. The last day of the period so computed is to be included, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nIn the present case, notice of plaintiff\u2019s motion for summary judgment was mailed to defendants\u2019 counsel on 21 September 1972, and the hearing on that motion was set for 2 October 1972. According to Rule 6(a), the 10 day time period required by Rule 56(c) would start to run on 22 September 1972 and end on 2 October 1972, since 1 October 1972 was a Sunday. Plaintiff failed to serve his motion at least 10 days before the time fixed for the hearing as required by Rule 56 (c). See Ketner v. Rouzer, 11 N.C. App. 483, 182 S.E. 2d 21. The allowance of the motion for summary judgment was, therefore, error.\nIf the notice had been personally served, plaintiff would have failed, by one day, to give 10 days notice before the hearing; however, plaintiff also failed to comply with G.S. 1A-1, Rule 6(e) because in this case notice was given by mail. Rule 6(e) provides:\n\u201cWhenever a party has the right to do some act or take some proceedings within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other paper upon him and the notice or paper is served upon him by mail, three days shall be added to the prescribed period.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nDefendants had the right to file opposing affidavits up through the day before the date fixed for hearing the summary judgment motion. Rule 6(e), in effect, extends the minimum 10 day notice period to 13 days when the notice is by mail. See 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice, par. 56.14 [1] (2d ed. 1948), p. 2255. This rule serves to alleviate the disparity between constructive and actual notice when the mailing of notice begins a designated period of time for the performance of some right. Because of plaintiff\u2019s failure to give defendant the extra three days notice as required by Rule 6 (e) when service of notice is by mail, the allowance of the motion for summary judgment was error.\nDefendants also assign as error the inclusion of their counterclaim in the summary judgment. Even if plaintiff had complied with notice requirements, that portion of the judgment granting summary judgment on defendants\u2019 counterclaim was error. Plaintiff did not move for summary judgment on defendants\u2019 counterclaim.\nFor failure of plaintiff to give the required notice of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the entry of summary judgment for plaintiff was error.\nReversed.\nJudges Campbell and Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Coltrane and Gavin, by T. Worth Coltrane, for plaintiff.",
      "Ottway Burton for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PLANTERS NATIONAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. DALE RUSH and wife, MARY SUE RUSH\nNo. 7319SC117\n(Filed 14 March 1973)\nRules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 56\u2014 motion for summary judgment \u2014 failure to serve in apt time\nThe trial court erred in allowing plaintiff\u2019s motion for summary judgment where plaintiff failed to serve his motion at least 10 days before the time fixed for the hearing as required by Rule 56(c), and failed to give defendant the extra three days notice required by Rule 6(e) when service is by mail.\nAppeal from McConnell, Judge, at the 2 October 1972 Session of Superior Court held in Randolph County.\nPlaintiff instituted this action on 4 September 1970 to recover a judgment of $32,181.28, plus interest and costs, from defendants on three notes alleged to be due. Ancillary to this action, plaintiff instituted claim and delivery proceedings against certain personal property of defendants, i.e., pigs, hogs, sows and other livestock described in a security agreement executed contemporaneously with the first note alleged to be due. Defendants posted sufficient bond for the retention and possession of this personal property. Subsequent to posting this bond, defendants filed a counterclaim against plaintiff alleging, in part, that plaintiff \u201ccontinues to harass . . . and to attempt to thwart\u201d the sale of certain of defendants\u2019 livestock.\nOn 21 September 1972, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment for the relief prayed for in the complaint. The motion was accompanied by supporting affidavits. Notice of the motion for summary judgment was served on defendants\u2019 counsel by depositing same in the mail on 21 September 1972, setting 2 October 1972 as the time for a hearing on said motion.\nJudgment was entered on 10 October 1972 granting plaintiff\u2019s motion for summary judgment and ordering that plaintiff recover the sum of $33,296.84 and the costs of the action. The judgment also dismissed defendants\u2019 counterclaim. Defendants appealed from this judgment.\nColtrane and Gavin, by T. Worth Coltrane, for plaintiff.\nOttway Burton for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0564-01",
  "first_page_order": 588,
  "last_page_order": 591
}