Case Name: THORP COMMERCIAL CORPORATION and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey v. MISSISSIPPI ROAD SUPPLY COMPANY
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1977-08-10
Citations: 348 So. 2d 1016
Docket Number: No. 49377
Parties: THORP COMMERCIAL CORPORATION and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey v. MISSISSIPPI ROAD SUPPLY COMPANY.
Judges: INZER and SMITH, P. JJ., and ROBERTSON, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 348
Pages: 1016–1019

Head Matter:
THORP COMMERCIAL CORPORATION and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey v. MISSISSIPPI ROAD SUPPLY COMPANY.
No. 49377.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Aug. 10, 1977.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 31, 1977.
Daniel, Coker, Horton, Bell & Dukes, Suzanne N. Cook, Thomas H. Suttle, Jr., Jackson, for appellants.
Wise, Carter, Child, Steen & Caraway, Henderson S. Hall, Jr., Jackson, for appel-lee.

Opinion:
LEE, Justice,
for the Court:
The Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, sitting without a jury, entered judgment on a replevin bond in favor of Mississippi Road Supply [MRS] against Thorp Commercial Corporation [Thorp] and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, surety, in the amount of five thousand one hundred fifty-six dollars thirty-two cents ($5,156.32), and held that the repairman's lien of Mississippi Road Supply held priority over a perfected security interest of Thorp Commercial Corporation. Thorp and its surety appeal here.
The question to be decided is whether or not MRS had a valid repairman's lien on certain equipment and whether or not the trial court erred in entering judgment in its favor.
On June 9, 1972, MRS sold Thorp a new International Model 7D-15(C) Power-Shift Crawler Tractor for the sum of fifty-six thousand eight hundred forty-five dollars ninety-five cents ($56,845.95). Subsequently, on June 13, 1972, Thorp entered into a lease agreement with James E. Herrin of Collins, Covington County, Mississippi, on the equipment. Thorp filed financing statements with the Secretary of State and with the Chancery Clerk of Covington County covering same and perfected its security interest on June 23,1972. An assignment of that interest was executed to ITT Industrial Credit Company September 24, 1974. In April and May, 1974, at Herrin's request, MRS made repairs on and furnished parts for the tractor. Herrin failed to pay for same, whereupon MRS requested Thorp and ITT to satisfy the claim, which request was refused. MRS then attempted to secure payment of the repairs by having Herrin execute a promissory note and security agreement.
MRS returned possession of the equipment to Herrin about May 21, 1974, after receiving the promissory note and security agreement. Herrin defaulted November 1, 1974, on the Thorp lease contract, the total then due being fifty thousand five hundred ninety-seven dollars twelve cents ($50,-597.12). On January 1, 1975, Herrin voluntarily restored possession of the equipment to MRS. Thorp filed its replevin action July 8, 1975. The repairs made by MRS were necessary to maintain the tractor in operational condition and to prevent its depreciation. There was no change in the relationship or situation surrounding Thorp, MRS and Herrin (other than default by Herrin on the lease agreement) between the time MRS released the equipment to Herrin and the time it regained possession of same.
We now address the question of whether or not the repairman's lien of MRS held priority over Thorp's perfected security interest.
Mississippi Code Annotated Section 85-7-101 (1972) provides that a mechanic shall have a lien upon equipment for labor and material and shall have the right to retain possession of same until the bill is paid. After thirty (30) days, the mechanic may commence suit for the amount owed and for sale of the property to satisfy same.
Mississippi Code Annotated Section 85-7-105 (1972) states that in the event the lien-holder parts with possession of the property he shall retain his lien while same remains in the hands of the owner, or in the hands of one deriving title or possession through him, with notice that the amount of the repairs is unpaid.
Before adoption of the Mississippi Uniform Commercial Code, Section 85-7-101 and the case law (rule of law) established that mechanics' liens take priority over pri- or conditional sales contracts or vendors' liens (security interest). Commercial Securities Co. v. Kriner, 53 So.2d 92 (Miss.1951); Funchess v. Pennington, 205 Miss. 500, 39 So.2d 1 (1949); Billups v. Becker's Welding & Machine Co., 186 Miss. 41, 189 So. 526 (1939); Broom & Son v. Dale & Sons, 109 Miss. 52, 67 So. 659 (1915). In De Van Motor Co. v. Bailey, 177 Miss. 441, 171 So. 342 (1936), it was held that a mechanic's lien was superior to a conditional sales contract with retention of title even though the seller had no knowledge of, nor gave its actual consent for, the repairs made.
Mississippi Code Annotated Section 75-9-310 (1972) (UCC) provides as follows:
"When a person in the ordinary course of his business furnishes services or materials with respect to goods subject to a security interest, a lien upon goods in the possession of such person given by statute or rule of law for such materials or services takes priority over a perfected security interest unless the lien is statutory and the statute expressly provides otherwise."
There was no change in the status or rights of the parties between the date MRS delivered possession of the equipment to Herrin and the date it was restored to the possession of MRS, and Thorp could not be, and was not, prejudiced by such restoration. The cases of Manufacturer's Acceptance Corp. v. Gibson, 220 Tenn. 654, 422 S.W.2d 435 (1967) and Krueger v. Texas State Bank, 528 S.W.2d 121 (Tex.Civ.App.1975) hold that under the said section [UCC § 75-9-310] a repairman's lien has priority over a secured interest where the property is in possession of the mechanic. The cases of Forrest Cate Ford, Inc. v. Fryar, 62 Tenn.App. 572, 465 S.W.2d 882 (1970) and Balzer Machinery Co. v. Klineline Sand & Gravel Co., 271 Or. 596, 533 P.2d 321 (1975), deal with non-possessory liens (equipment out of possession) and are distinguished from the present case. We are in agreement with the rule that ordinarily a new statute will not be considered as reversing long-established principles of law and equity unless the legislative intention to do so clearly appears. Our lien statute [§ 85-7-101] and Section 75-9-310 manifest an intention that the said statutes are to be read and interpreted in pari materia.
MRS, being restored to the possession of the equipment voluntarily and with the cooperation of Herrin, had a lien upon goods in its possession within the meaning of Section 75-9-310, and such lien held priority over the security interest of Thorp. Consequently, the trial court was correct in entering judgment for MRS, and the judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
INZER and SMITH, P. JJ., and ROBERTSON, J., concur.
PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG, WALKER and BROOM, JJ., dissent.
BOWLING, J., took no part.