Court Opinion

ID: 9863105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 03:05:49.840121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:47:03.943868
License: Public Domain

Sam RobiNsoN, Associate Justice, dissenting. When the so-called intervention was filed in May, 1956, asking that the appellant be required to indorse the bonds in order to complete the settlement in the divorce case, the court had lost jurisdiction. WTien Smith paid the $40,000 plus $1,780, there was nothing left undone; the judgment had been satisfied. Now as to the merits: Smith did not need the indorsement of his former wife to enable him to cash the bonds. If he had wanted to deprive her of the proceeds of the bonds in the event of his death, there was nothing to keep him from cashing the bonds in his lifetime. He had possession of the bonds for almost a year after the divorce was granted, with full power and authority to cash them at any time. All the bonds matured before Smith’s death. The decision of the majority is based entirely on the assumption that Smith “neglected to cash the bonds or have them reissued in his name alone during his lifetime.” In my opinion there is not a scintilla of evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, to support such an assumption. On the contrary, the evidence is that the bonds were not cashed for the simple reason that Smith did not want to cash them. In the event of his death he wanted his divorced wife to get the comparatively small amount of money represented by the bonds. The bonds had been purchased by Smith before he and appellee were married. The bonds were made payable to John A. Smith, but.on his death they are payable to “Miss Ada Davidson,” who later married John A. Smith and is the appellee. The Smiths were married in 1946 and lived together as man and wife until 1954. No children-were born of this union, and John A. Smith is not survived by any children; neither is he survived by father or mother or brothers or sisters. At the time of his death he was worth more than $200,000. From the proven facts, I think there is a reasonable inference that Smith did not cash the bonds because he wanted his former wife to have that small amount additional in the event of his death. One thing for certain, there is not any evidence that he failed to cash the bonds through negligence. Ordinarily a person who accumulates more than $200,000 is not very negligent about money matters. I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice Holt and Mr. Justice McFaddiN join in this dissent.