Court Opinion

ID: 9617027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:51:26.710694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:04.673573
License: Public Domain

ROONEY, Justice,
specially concurring.
In concurring with the majority opinion, I wish to note that I do not reach the point of treating the subject rotary table as an “accession or addition” to any of the items described in schedule A attached to the security agreement. It was not. It replaced another rotary table described in the schedule, but it was not covered by the security agreement.
However, I agree that appellant did not protect himself at the time he sold the rotary table by retaining an encumbrance on it, and that the title and possession acquired by appellees were not subject to any interest of appellant in it.