Ferrucci v. Jack

Singley, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Ferrucci would have us reverse a summary judgment for costs entered in favor of the defendants in a damage suit which he had instituted in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. On 25 January 1965, Ferrucci, a tenant at Snow Hill Apartments at Laurel, Maryland, slipped and fell on a path leading to the apartments. On 27 July 1967 he sued “Minsh Corporation, T/A Snow Hill Apartments” ⁵²⁴ (Minsh) for damages for the injuries he had sustained.

On 17 August 1967 Minsh countered with a motion for security for costs under Maryland Rule' 328 a 1 with which Ferrucci complied on 18 December. On 19 March 1968, Minsh filed a general issue plea. • On 1 July 1968, Minsh moved for a summary judgment or dismissal relying on the affidavit of Betty Straw Jack that she was a- member of a limited partnership, Snow Hill Apartments, Section 3, which had owned the property at the time of the accident on 25 January 1965 and that Mensh Corporation had no connection with the apartments on that date. It would appear that Mensh Corporation became managing agent on 1 December 1965, some 10 months after the alleged accident. Although this motion was denied, Ferrucci was permitted to file an amended declaration on 3 October 1968 which substituted the limited partnership and its partners for “Minsh” as defendants.

A week later, the defendants filed a general issue plea and specially pleaded limitations. With their plea was filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted, obviously in-reliance upon Maryland Code (1957, 1968 Repl. Vol.) Art. 57 § 1 which provides that “All actions * * * on the case * * * shall be commenced * * * within three years from the time the cause of action accrued; * * *” and Talbott v. Gegenheimer, 237 Md. 62 , 205 A. 2d 285 (1964) which holds that when a new party is brought in by amendment after limitations have run, the defendant may properly plead the statute as a defense. The appellant would have us reverse the summary judgment because “[t]he record is clear that Appellees and their Counsel by design, concealed the true identity of the defendants by allowing representation of Minsh Corporation when Appellees and Counsel knew that Minsh was not the true defendant and a nonexistent corporation” until limitations had run.

The record before the lower court and before us can hardly be said to support this contention. What it does show is that on 1 December 1965, almost a year after Ferrucci’s fall, the Mensh ⁵²⁵ Corporation took over the management of Snow Hill Apartments for the owners, and was acting in this capacity when Ferrucci filed, his suit in July, 1967. It also shows that Mensh’s insurance carrier caused the suit to be defended. Of even greater significance is the fact that from the day the suit was instituted on 27 July 1967 until the defendant filed its general issue