The opinion
David Newbern, Judge, concurring. I reluctantly agree with the result in this case. The statute, Ark. Stat. Ann.. § 67-552 (Repl. 1966), quoted in the majority opinion is subject to an interpretation which would permit a “designation in writing” to be construed as the writing on the certificate itself which, if accepted by the purchaser, could be interpreted readily as his designation. The analogy to a deed conveying land in joint tenancy would be strong. In the case of a deed, the grantee need sign nothing for the conveyance to be effected in that way.
Because of the decision in Willey v. Murphy, 247 Ark. 839 , 448 S.W. 2d 341 (1969), we are permitted no interpretation of the statute other than the one expressed in the majority opinion. I believe we should make clear, however, that neither Cook v. Bevill, 246 Ark. 805 , 440 S.W. 2d 570 (1969), nor Justice v. Ringold, 254 Ark. 11 , 491 S.W. 2d 383 (1973), would require the holding we reach here, as in those cases the certificates themselves contained no right of survivor-ship designation.
Chief Judge Wright and Judge Pilkinton join in.this concurring opinion.