Court Opinion

ID: 9849701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:44:34.262795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:24.843655
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Hall, Judge.
On the motion for rehearing the plaintiff attacks the holding that the assignee cannot recover without proof that the assignor had the right to transfer the note, citing Part 3, Article 9, of the Uniform Commercial Code (Ga. L. 1962, pp. 156, 401; Code Ann. § 109A-9 — 305): "A security interest in . . . instruments . . . may be perfected by the secured party’s taking possession of the collateral.”
This part and section of the statute deals with perfection of security interests so as to protect and give priority to secured creditors over claims of third parties in personal property taken as security; they do not govern the creation of property rights or security interests. See Kock, Georgia Commercial Practice 200, § 9-1. Part 2, Article 9 of the Code (Ga. L. 1962, p. 390) deals with the Validity of Security Agreement and Rights of Parties Thereto. Section 109A-9 — 204 provides: “A security interest cannot attach until there is agreement . . . that it attach and value is given and the debtor has rights in the collateral. It attaches as soon as all of the events in the preceding sentence have taken place. . .” (Emphasis supplied.)
The statutory provision upon which the plaintiff relies does not nullify the rule that the “transfer of an instrument vests in the transferee such rights as the transferor has therein.” Ga. L. 1962, pp. 156, 248 (Code Ann. § 109A-3 — 201). It (Code Ann. § 109A-9 — 305) does not supply the essential element of a prop*271erty right in the transferor or authority to transfer the note to the plaintiff in this case, the note on its face showing no right in the transferor.

Motion for rehearing denied.

Bell, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.