Title: Dennis v. Travelers Insurance Co.

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

234 So. 2d 624 (1970) Pee Wee DENNIS, a Minor, by Father & Next Friend, Herbert Dennis, Herbert Dennis, Individually and Nettie Mae Dennis v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. and James E. Wells. No. 45776. Supreme Court of Mississippi. April 27, 1970. Sullivan, Sullivan & Keyes, S. Smith Bonner, Jackson, for appellants. Daniel, Coker, Horton & Bell, John B. Clark, Jackson, for appellees. BRADY, Justice. This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds *625 County, Mississippi, wherein the appellees' motion to dismiss was granted on the ground that the one year statute of limitation had run. From this decision an appeal is taken. This action was begun by the filing of a declaration by the appellants alleging that the appellees had violated Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 2365 (1956), which states that: making them guilty of attempted robbery for using a threat of prosecution in a letter with the intent to extort payment of a civil debt from the appellants. The letter upon which the suit is based is as follows: A second letter or follow-up letter, also written on The Travelers Insurance Company stationery, is as follows: To this declaration the appellees filed a demurrer, a motion to dismiss, and an answer. The demurrer was in general form and the motion to dismiss set up, among other grounds, that the declaration was barred by Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 732 (1956), which is as follows: The circuit court determined that the declaration did state a cause of action but that the cause of action arose from the first letter dated November 8, 1967, and further that this action was barred by the running of the statute of limitations, Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 732 (1956). From this motion to dismiss, an appeal is taken. The appellants assign as error: (1) That the lower court erred in sustaining the appellees' motion to dismiss, based upon the ground that the cause of action created in the appellants by their letter of November 8, 1967, was barred by the statute of limitations; (2) that the lower court erred in finding that the letter dated August 26, 1968, was not a separate cause of action; and (3) that the court erred in finding that the only cause of action stated against the appellees was solely by reason of the issuance of the letter dated November 8, 1967. The appellees cross appealed on the grounds that the court erred in overruling the demurrer of the appellees. The appellants' declaration charged that the appellees, James E. Wells and The Travelers Insurance Company, in using a threat of criminal prosecution, by way of a letter, to enforce payment of a purported civil debt, "constituted a willful, malicious, and irresponsible act upon their part, and that said appellees knew, or should have known, that they would cause physical unrest and mental distress to each of the appellants * * *." (Emphasis added.) It is clear that Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 732 (1956), which provides an inclusive listing of the recognized intentional torts is controlling in the case at bar. There can be no escape from the bar of the statute of limitations applicable to intentional torts by the mere refusal to style the cause brought in a recognized statutory category and thereby circumvent prohibition of the statute. Furthermore, the letter, which is the basis for the action at bar, falls squarely within the purview of the statute under the category of "menace" as set out in the statute. Webster's International Dictionary, Third Edition, among many definitions of the word "menace" lists "1 a: a show of intention to inflict harm: a threatening gesture, statement, or act * * *. b: threatening import, character, or aspect: THREAT * * *. 2 a: someone or something that represents a threat * * *." Popular words in statutes must be accepted in their popular sense and the court must attempt to glean from the statute the legislative intent. Mississippi State Tax Comm'n v. Hinton, 218 So. 2d 740 (Miss. 1969). *627 The first letter written by Mr. James E. Wells, adjuster for the appellee, as the trial court properly held, was one of menace and was threatening and falls squarely under the prescription set forth in Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 732 (1956). Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Ingram, 206 So. 2d 204 (Miss. 1968); Kitchens v. Barlow, 250 Miss. 121, 164 So. 2d 745 (1964); Bush v. City of Laurel, 234 Miss. 93, 105 So. 2d 562 (1958). While it is unnecessary for us to consider whether or not the demurrer should have been sustained, it appears to us that under the ruling in State v. Ricks, 108 Miss. 7, 66 So. 281 (1914), the demurrer could have properly been sustained. However, we do not decide this issue as it is evident that the motion to dismiss was properly sustained. For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. Affirmed. GILLESPIE, P.J., and RODGERS, PATTERSON and SMITH, JJ., concur.