Pee Wee DENNIS, a Minor, by Father & Nеxt Friend, Herbert Dennis, Herbert Dennis, Individually and Nettie Mae Dennis
v.
TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. and James E. Wells.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
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 aрpellees' 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 аction 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:
Every person who shall knowingly send or deliver, or shall make, and, for the purpose of being sent or delivered, shall part with the possession of any letter or writing with or without a name subscribed thereto, or signed with a fictitious name, or with any letter, mark, or other dеsignation, threatening therein to accuse any person of a crime or to do any injury to the person or property of any onе, with a view or intent to extort or gain money or property of any description belonging to another, shall be guilty of an attempt to rob, and shall, on conviction, be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding five years.
making them guilty of attempted robbery for using a threаt 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:
November 8, 1967 Mr. & Mrs. Dennis 1822 Topp Street Jackson, MississippiDear Mr. and Mrs. Dennis:
In cooperation with the Juvenilе Bureau of the Jackson Police Department, it has been determined that your son, Pee Wee, was a member of the group of boys whо damaged three buses on or about October 5, 1967. The total damage to the three buses was in the amount of $996.70. Your son's share of that damage would be $199.34.
It is to be understood that further cooperation on the part of your son or his companions with the Juvenile Department, in supрlying us with names and addresses of other persons involved, would lessen the above indicated amount.
Your check, in the amount of $199.34 payablе to The Travelers Insurance Company, will be appreciated.
We would be more than willing to make arrangements whereby this amount could be paid on an installment basis. If you do not contact this office to explain your position in this matter, it will have to be turned over to juvenile officials who will proceed with court action.Yours very truly, s/ James E. Wells James E. Wells Adjuster JEW/mlw
A second letter or follow-up letter, also written оn The Travelers Insurance Company stationery, is as follows:
August 26, 1968 Mr. and Mrs. Dennis 1822 Top Street Jackson, Mississippi Re:Dear Mr. and Mrs. Dennis:
This letter is a follow uр to a letter dated November 8, 1967 from our office regarding the above captioned loss. It stated that in cooperation with the juvenile bureau of the Jackson Police Department, it has been determined that your son, Pewee, was a member of the group of boys who damaged three buses on or about October 5, 1967. The total damage to the three buses was in the amount of $996.70. Your son's share of that damage would be $199.34.
*626 Your check in the amount of $199.34 payable to the Travelers Ins. Co. would be appreciated.
We would be more than willing to makе arrangements where by this amount could be paid on an installment basis. If you do not contact this office to explain your position within the nеxt 30 days I will be forced to turn this over to our attorneys for further handling.Sincerely yours, s/ Max Runnels Max Runnels Adjuster MR/bm
To this declaration the appelleеs 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:
All actions for assault, assault and battery, maiming, false imprisonment, malicious arrest, or menace, and all actions for slanderous words concerning the person or title, and for libels, shall be commenced within one year next after the cause of such action accrued, and not after.
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 wаs 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 agаinst 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 а 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 knоwn, that they would cause physical unrest and mental distress to each of the appellants * * *." (Emphasis added.)
It is clear that Mississippi Code 1942 Annоtated 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 а recognized statutory category and thereby circumvent prohibition of the statute. Furthermore, the letter, which is the basis for the action аt 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 Editiоn, 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 impоrt, character, or aspect: THREAT * * *. 2 a: someone or something that represents a threat * * *."
Popular words in statutes must be acceрted in their popular sense and the court must attempt to glean from the statute the legislative intent. Mississippi State Tax Comm'n v. Hinton,
*627 The first letter writtеn by Mr. James E. Wells, adjuster for the appellee, as the trial court properly held, was one of menace and was threatening and fаlls squarely under the prescription set forth in Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 732 (1956). Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Ingram,
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,
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
GILLESPIE, P.J., and RODGERS, PATTERSON and SMITH, JJ., concur.