
    WINFREY v. FARHAT.
    1. Judgment — Accelerated Judgment — Depositions.
    Depositions may be submitted by either party to support or oppose a motion for accelerated judgment (GCR 1963, 116.3).
    2. Same — Accelerated Judgment — Statute of Limitations.
    Accelerated judgment for defendant in medical malpractice action held, properly granted, where the reco.rd on appeal contains uncontroverted facts which establish that plaintiff’s elaim was barred by the statute of limitations (CLS 1961, § 600.5805).
    References for Points in Headnotes
    [1] 41 Am Jur, Pleadings §§ 336, 342.
    [2] 34 Am Jur, Limitation of Actions §§ 422, 423.
    Appeal from Genesee, Freeman (Donald R.), J.
    Submitted Division 2 May 9, 1968, at Lansing.
    (Docket No. 3,606.)
    Decided May 31, 1968.
    Leave to appeal granted September 30, 1968.
    See 381 Midi 780.
    Complaint by Iva M. Winfrey and Lillard L. Winfrey against Maynard M. Farbat for medical malpractice. Accelerated judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal.
    Affirmed.
    
      Howard G. Fisher, for plaintiffs.
    
      Gline & Cline, for defendant.
   Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs’ medical malpractice cause of action was dismissed by accelerated judgment based on tbe fact that the statute of limitations had run as to their claim. Plaintiffs appeal.

The deposition of the plaintiff Iva M. Winfrey was properly received, and considered under GfCÉ 1963, 116.3, which provides in part that affidavits as well as other evidence may be considered on the motion.

The record on appeal contains uncontroverted facts which establish that plaintiff Iva M. Winfrey’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

Affirmed. Costs to appellees.

Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn and Moody, JJ., concurred. 
      
       CLS 1961, § 600.5805 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.5805).
     