# Harris v. Maready

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · September 20, 1983 · 64 N.C. App. 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9853357

## Case

- **Full name:** Shirley T. Harris v. W. F. Maready, William H. Petree, C. Roger Harris, and Petree, Stockton, Robinson, Vaughn, Glaze and Maready
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** September 20, 1983
- **Citations:** 64 N.C. App. 1; 306 S.E.2d 799; 1983 N.C. App. LEXIS 3243
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Arnold
- **Judges:** Braswell, Arnold, Webb
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9853357

## Opinion text

*17 Judge ARNOLD,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in holding that plaintiffs action should have been dismissed for violation of Rule 8(a)(2). However, I respectfully dissent from that part of the opinion holding that plaintiff sued and served the wrong party.
It is true that the defendant law firm has always been a partnership and never a corporation. It is also true that plaintiff meant to sue the law firm, Petree, Stockton, Robinson, Vaughn, Glaze and Maready. A summons was even served on “William H. Petree (General Partner)” as is pointed out by the majority.
Under the facts of this case there could be no possible misunderstanding as to the exactitude of the party defendant being sued. In my view the identity of the defendant was sufficiently stated to bring the law firm within the trial court’s jurisdiction. The common sense reasoning by which our Supreme Court reached its result in Wiles seems to apply to the facts of this case. I would reverse as to plaintiffs appeal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9853357. Public record. Not legal advice.