Title: Hawkins v. Southern Pipe and Supply Co.

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

259 So. 2d 696 (1972) Ivor Sue HAWKINS v. SOUTHERN PIPE AND SUPPLY CO., Inc. No. 46575. Supreme Court of Mississippi. March 20, 1972. Rehearing Denied April 10, 1972. Harold Noe, Bourdeaux & Jones, Meridian, for appellant. Thomas K. Holyfield, Irvin L. Martin, Jr., Meridian, for appellee. ROBERTSON, Justice: Standard Life Insurance Company of the South filed a bill of interpleader in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County, and paid into the registry of the court $9,325.18, the net proceeds of a $5,000.00 life insurance policy with double indemnity clause attached, on the life of Sam E. Hawkins, deceased. Two claimants were interpleaded. One was Ivor Sue Hawkins, the named beneficiary in the policy of insurance when it was issued on June 18, 1958, who had been divorced from the insured Hawkins some years before his death. The other claimant was Southern Pipe and Supply Company, Inc., who had possession of the policy at the time of Hawkins' accidental death on May 8, 1970, by virtue of an assignment dated July 30, 1958, from Hawkins to Southern Pipe. The assignment was on a regular form furnished by Standard Life, which was styled "ASSIGNMENT OF POLICY AS COLLATERAL SECURITY". This assignment recited as the condition upon which it was issued: *697 Claimant Hawkins answered the claim of Southern Pipe including in her answer a plea in bar and an affirmative defense of the statute of limitations. She contended in these pleas that no indebtedness existed from Hawkins to Southern Pipe at the time of his death, and she, as the named beneficiary in the policy, was entitled to the proceeds. The circuit judge, sitting as judge and jury, found that the indebtedness of Hawkins to Southern Pipe was barred by the statute of limitations, but that the statute of limitations did not apply because the assignment was in effect a pledge and, inasmuch as Southern Pipe had possession of the policy, that it was entitled to the proceeds of the policy paid into court. The Mississippi statute, § 743 Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated (1956), is different from that of most of the other states in that the right as well as the remedy is defeated and extinguished. § 743 provides: We repeat the purpose of the assignment as expressly stated in it: "[T]his assignment is intended to secure such indebtedness of the insured to the Assignee as may exist at the time of settlement under this Policy, ..." If the right is defeated and extinguished, and the statute plainly says it is, then there was no indebtedness existing at the time of the death of Hawkins. In Proctor v. Hart, 72 Miss. 288, 16 So. 595 (1895), this Court commented on the wording of the statute before 1880 and as it was amended to read after 1880. Section 2685, Code of 1880, is exactly the same as Section 743, Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated. In Proctor, this Court said: In the later case of Greene v. Greene, 145 Miss. 87, 110 So. 218 (1926), this Court again commented on the difference between the Mississippi statute and that of other states: In the case at bar, it was not contended that there was a new promise based on the former legal obligation. In Perkins et al. v. White, 208 Miss. 157, 43 So. 2d 897 (1950), there was involved a promissory note, the payment of which was secured by a deed of trust on real property. This Court found: After citing § 743, the Court ruled: If the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee was terminated upon the running of the statute in Perkins, then the relationship of debtor and creditor was terminated upon the running of the statute in this case, and there was no indebtedness existing "at the time of settlement under this Policy." Thus the condition under which the assignment was given, and indeed the assignment itself, expired under its own express terms. We find that the assignee, Southern Pipe, was not entitled to the interpleaded funds, and that Mrs. Hawkins, as the named beneficiary in the policy of insurance, was entitled to the net proceeds of the policy. The judgment in favor of Southern Pipe is, therefore, reversed and judgment entered here for Mrs. Hawkins. Reversed and rendered. RODGERS, P.J., and PATTERSON, INZER and SMITH, JJ., concur.