Drysdale v. Cornerstone Bank

HOGAN, Judge.

This case presents a question of priority between two creditors secured under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, codified in this State as §§ 400.9-101—9.-507, RSMo (1969) V.A.M.S. 1 It stands tacitly admitted that priority depends on the order of perfection by filing. Specifically, the question is whether plaintiff or defendant (bank) is entitled to certain items of personalty acquired by the debtor after the bank’s financing statement was filed. The appeal is here upon an agreed statement of fact in lieu of a transcript as authorized by Rule 83.13. Therefore, and…