When the descriptions in a security agreement and a financing statement differ, the description in the security agreement controls. Landen v. Prod. Credit Ass'n of Midlands, 737 P.2d 1325, 1328 (Wyo. 1987); Tri-County Livestock Auction Co. v. Bank of Madison, 185 S.E.2d 393, 395-96 (Ga. 1971). Here, the note given to plaintiffs describes the collateral as "dairy cows owned by Steven A. and Pamela N. Van Hattem."
(Emphasis supplied.) OCGA ยง 11-1-201 (3); Tri-County Livestock c. Co. v. Bank of Madison, 228 Ga. 325, 329 ( 185 S.E.2d 393); see In re Fibre Glass Boat Corp., 324 F. Supp. 1054, 1056 (D.C. S.D. Fla.); American Nat. Bank, supra at 235 (1). "A security agreement should not be held unenforceable unless it is so ambiguous that its meaning cannot reasonably be construed from the language of the agreement itself."
We note that the commercial code regards the sale of farm products on a higher level than most other sales, in that a security interest created by the seller of farm product follows even to a buyer in the ordinary course of business. OCGA ยง 11-9-307 (1); First Nat. Bank, supra; see Bank of Madison v. Tri-County c. Co., 123 Ga. App. 768 ( 182 S.E.2d 687), rev'd on other grounds, 228 Ga. 325 ( 185 S.E.2d 393). See also OCGA ยง 11-9-312 (2), which is not in issue in this case.
This case is governed by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) (Code Ann. Ch. 109A-9 et seq.) The UCC provides that a "perfected" security interest takes priority over an "unperfected" one in the same collateral. Code Ann. ยงยง 109A-9-301 (1) (a) and 109A-9-312 (5). Tri-County Livestock Auction Co. v. Bank of Madison, 228 Ga. 325, 329 ( 185 S.E.2d 393). See M. D. Hodges Enterprises v. First Ga. Bank, 243 Ga. 664, 666 ( 256 S.E.2d 350).
When goods have been delivered under a transaction of purchase the purchaser has such Power even though ... (b) the delivery was in exchange for a check which is later dishonored..." Under this code section it has been held that "[w]here, as here, the seller [American] did not perfect [its] Purchase money security interest (Ga. UCC ยง 9-302; Code Ann. ยง 109A-9-302), the lien of a security instrument previously perfected by filing held by the plaintiff bank covering after-acquired [property] attached to the [property] sold" when it came into the possession of the buyer, thus giving the bank priority over the seller. Bank of Madison v. Tri-County Livestock Auction Co., 123 Ga. App. 768 (2), 769-770 ( 182 S.E.2d 687) (1971), revd. on other grounds Tri-County Livestock Auction Co. v. Bank of Madison, 228 Ga. 325 ( 185 S.E.2d 393) (1971). See also United States v. Wyoming Nat. Bank, 505 F.2d 1064 (9) (10th Cir. 1974); Matter of Samuels Co., Inc., 526 F.2d 1238 (5, 6) (5th Cir. 1976).
PANNELL, Judge. The decision of this court in this case ( 123 Ga. App. 768 ( 182 S.E.2d 687)) reversing the trial court, having been reversed by the Supreme Court of this State ( Tri-County Livestock Auction Co. v. Bank of Madison, 228 Ga. 325 ( 185 S.E.2d 393)), the Supreme Court expressly ruling "we hold that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the judgment of the trial court," the judgment of reversal entered by this court is hereby vacated and the judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed. Judgment affirmed. Bell, C. J., and Deen, J., concur.
Compare Swift Co. v. Jamestown Nat'l Bank, 426 F.2d 1099, 1102 (8th Cir. 1970); United States v. Mid-States Sales Co., 336 F. Supp. 1099, 1102 (D. Neb. 1971).See Tri-County Livestock Auction Co. v. Bank of Madison, 228 Ga. 325, 185 S.E.2d 393 (1971). The judgment is affirmed.
Under Georgia law, in order to maintain a security interest in after-acquired collateral, the security agreement must provide that such after-acquired collateral is covered under the security agreement. See O.C.G.A. ยง 11-19-203, -204(1) (Michie 1982); and Tri-County Livestock Auction Co. v. Bank of Madison, 228 Ga. 325, 185 S.E.2d 393 (1971). It is uncontroverted in this case that the security agreement signed by Mr. Alexander for the $16,000 loan did not cover after-acquired collateral, nor did it cover the offspring of the pigs purchased with these funds.
The description of the land in the security agreement cannot be enlarged by filing a financing statement in which the land is more broadly described in order to cover land not included in the security agreement. Id. See also Tri-County Livestock Auction Co. v. Bank of Madison, 228 Ga. 325, 329, 185 S.E.2d 393, 396 (1971). Under the security agreement, the Bank of Dooly took a security interest in only the crops grown on the land listed in Exhibit A, which includes Land Lot Numbers 172, 180, 181, 203, and 204, and the crop proceeds from that land.
We are mindful that a financing statement should not be construed to enlarge the description of the collateral in the security agreement. See Tri-County Livestock Auction Co. v. Bank of Madison, 228 Ga. 325, 185 S.E.2d 393, 396 (1971). Here, the reference made by the security provision of the note to the financing statement clarifies the parties' intent to restrict the meaning of the phrase "all business assets" in the note to the specifications of the financing statement.