Herndon v. Heard

The statute of limitation did not bar Counts III and IV of plaintiff's amended complaint, which related back to plaintiff's original complaint.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Jack Heard sued his nephew, L. G. Herndon, Jr., and Herndon’s Sales and Storage of Vidalia Onions, Inc. “Herndon” for damages he claimed from their various business dealings. Herndon answered and counterclaimed. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in Heard’s favor for $168,719.99, and in favor of Herndon for $110,450.00. Herndon appeals, arguing in five enumerations of error that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part. The record shows that on December 20, 1995, Heard filed his complaint against Herndon and Herndon’s Sales, alleging that defendants had breached their agreement to let him use 424 onion bins for storage during the 1995 onion season. The complaint also alleged that defendants owed him $40,394.36 for an unspecified reason and that they owed him $6,500.00 for an unpaid debt for the purchase of a labeling machine. Heard claimed that defendants’ conduct had been willful and fraudulent and he also claimed punitive damages. Herndon and Herndon’s Sales answered and counterclaimed, alleging that Heard owed them money for various expenditures relating to the production of the 1994 and 1995 onion crop.

After receiving permission from the court, Herndon Sales and Storage amended its counterclaim on September 13, 1996, claiming that Heard had intentionally failed to cancel a security deed. The trial court granted Herndon’s motion for summary judgment on this claim. On September 27, 2001, Herndon filed another amendment to the counterclaim, alleging that Heard had slandered him by making derogatory and defamatory statements about him. On October 4, 2001, Heard filed an eighteen page “Amended and Restated Complaint,” which contained nine counts.

Herndon v. Heard

The statute of limitation did not bar Counts III and IV of plaintiff's amended complaint, which related back to plaintiff's original complaint.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report