Legal Opinion · Dissent

Womack v. Newman Fixture Co.

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided March 22, 1989No. CA 88-325Published

1DissentJudith Rogers, Judge

In this opinion, the majority at least tacitly recognizes that the description contained in the bank’s financing statement is inadequate. Yet, it is being held that this description should be deemed adequate because of certain facts presumed to have been known by appellee’s agent, Newman. Assuming for the moment that “actual knowledge” is relevant to a determination as to whether a description is sufficient, it is unclear to me whether the majority is holding that Newman actually knew of the bank’s prior security interest, or whether he was possessed of sufficient knowledge such that he…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Herrick v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1980
  2. Security Tire and Rubber Company v. HlassSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1969
  3. Affiliated Food Stores, Inc. v. Farmers & Merchants BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1989
  4. United States v. Riceland Foods, Inc.District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1981

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API