Curry Grain Storage v. Hesston Corp.

5 Citing cases

  1. M & I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Kinder Morgan Operating L.P.

    368 S.W.3d 160 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012)

    Because U.C.C. § 7–209 sets forth circumstances under which a warehouse lien will not take priority over a secured party, U.C.C. § 7–209 “expressly provides otherwise” within the meaning of U.C.C. § 9–333. In re Sharon Steel Corp., 176 B.R. 384, 387–88 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.1995); Curry Grain Storage, Inc. v. Hesston Corp., 120 Idaho 328, 815 P.2d 1068, 1071 (1991). U.C.C. § 7–209 provides that a prior warehouse lien takes priority over subsequent claims upon the goods.

  2. M&I Marshall & Isley Bank v. Kinder Morgan Operating L.P.

    No. ED96761 (Mo. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2012)

    Because U.C.C. § 7-209 sets forth circumstances under which a warehouse lien will not take priority over a secured party, U.C.C. § 7-209 "expressly provides otherwise" within the meaning of U.C.C. § 9-333. In re Sharon Steel Corp., 176 B.R. 384, 387-88 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1995); Curry Grain Storage, Inc. v. Hesston Corp, 815 P.2d 1068, 1071 (Idaho 1991).

  3. In re Sharon Steel Corp.

    176 B.R. 384 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1995)   Cited 3 times
    In Sharon Steel, the bank's credit agreement explicitly stated that, as an exception to the overall ban on liens, "[l]iens arising by operation of law in favor of... warehousemen... incurred by Holding... in the Ordinary course of business which secure its obligations to such Person; provided, however, that (i) Holdings. is not in default with respect to such payment obligation...."

    In another case which discusses the priority between a warehouseman's lien and prior perfected security interest, the Supreme Court of Idaho held that the secured creditor's prior perfected security interest in goods had priority over a warehouseman's lien. Curry Grain Storage, Inc. v. Hesston Corp., 120 Idaho 328, 815 P.2d 1068 (Idaho 1991). The court stated that the prior secured party's consent to the storage was not the issue; the issue was limited to whether the prior secured party so entrusted the seed to the bailor that the bailor could have pledged the seed to a hypothetical bona fide pledgee to defeat the prior security interest.

  4. In re Siena Publishers Associates

    149 B.R. 359 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1993)   Cited 4 times
    In Siena, the court held that the debtor could not validly pledge its inventory to a bona fide pledgee for value because the secured party possessed a validly perfected security interest in all of the debtor's assets, including its inventory.

    Therefore, the claimed warehouse lien could not be effective against the Bank's perfected security interest because N.Y.U.C.C. § 7-209(3) supersedes the priority for a statutory lien that would otherwise apply under N.Y.U.C.C. § 9-310. See Curry Grain Storage, Inc. v. Hesston Corp., 120 Idaho 328, 815 P.2d 1068, 16 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 191 (1991). In attempting to interpret section 7-209(3) one commentator noted:

  5. Ag Services of America, Inc. v. Kechter

    44 P.3d 1117 (Idaho 2002)   Cited 8 times

    Kechter argues that requiring the lien granted by Idaho Code § 28-7-209A to be dependent upon possession contradicts the legislative purpose for enacting the statute. The statute was enacted in response to this Court's ruling in Curry Grain Storage, Inc. v. Hesston Corporation, 120 Idaho 328, 815 P.2d 1068 (1991). In Curry this Court held that a warehouseman's lien for cleaning, processing, and storing grass seed did not have priority over a previously perfected security interest in the seed.