Case Name: FIN-AG, INC., Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WATERTOWN LIVESTOCK AUCTION, INC., Defendant and Appellant, and Dacotah Bank, Defendant
Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: South Dakota
Decision Date: 2008-06-18
Citations: 754 N.W.2d 23
Docket Number: No. 24050
Parties: FIN-AG, INC., Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WATERTOWN LIVESTOCK AUCTION, INC., Defendant and Appellant, and Dacotah Bank, Defendant.
Judges: [¶ 3.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and MEIERHENRY, Justice concur.
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 754
Pages: 23–29

Head Matter:
2008 SD 49
FIN-AG, INC., Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WATERTOWN LIVESTOCK AUCTION, INC., Defendant and Appellant, and Dacotah Bank, Defendant.
No. 24050.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Argued Jan. 8, 2007.
Decided June 18, 2008.
Jason W. Shanks of May & Johnson, PC, Sioux Falls, SD and Jonathan K. Van Patten Vermillion, SD, for appellee.
Michael A. Henderson of Cadwell, Sanford, Deibert & Garry, LLP, Sioux Falls, SD, for appellant.

Opinion:
ZINTER, Justice.
[¶ 1.] This appeal arises from an action for conversion by Fin-Ag, Inc. against Wa-tertown Livestock Auction, Inc. Fin-Ag alleges it had a perfected security interest in cattle sold at Watertown under the name C & M Dairy. The case involves numerous issues regarding a commission merchant's liability for conversion when the collateral involves farm products covered by the Food Security Act (FSA), 7 USC § 1631 (1985). On cross-motions for summary judgment, the circuit court concluded that Watertown converted Fin-Ag's collateral.
[¶ 2.] This case involves the same debtors and creditor, and the same type of cattle sales considered in Fin-Ag, Inc. v. Cimpl's, Inc., 2008 SD 47, 754 N.W.2d 1, 2008 WL 2469183; Fin-Ag, Inc. v. Pipestone Livestock Auction Market, Inc., and Fin-Ag, Inc. v. South Dakota Livestock Sales of Watertown, Inc., 2008 SD 48, 754 NW.2d 29, 2008 WL 2469194. In fact, the circuit court's memorandum decision in Fin-Ag, Inc. v. South Dakota Livestock Sales of Watertown was the basis for the circuit court's decision in this case. Because we considered the same core issues involving virtually identical transactions in the prior cases, we reverse and remand this case for further proceedings in accordance with those decisions.
[¶ 3.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and MEIERHENRY, Justice concur.
[¶ 4.] SABERS and KONENKAMP, Justices, dissent in part and concur in part.
. Berwalds includes the following persons and entities: Calvin Berwald, Michael Ber-wald, Kimberly Berwald, Berwald Brothers (a general partnership including Calvin and Michael Berwald as general partners), and Sok-ota Dairy, LLC.
. Watertown Livestock raises one additional argument under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 7 USC § 181, attempting to distinguish Consolidated Nutrition, L.C. v. IBP, Inc., 2003 SD 107, 669 N.W.2d 126. We decline to review that argument because it was not presented to the circuit court.