Court Opinion

ID: 9586736
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:14:24.051426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:49.083414
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The appellee Fisher Foods, Inc. contends we overlooked the obvious fact that these items were onions before they were accounts receivable. If we split the hair so fine, it becomes clear that Fisher Foods itself did not have a superior interest in the onions unless they were “growing or to be grown.” These onions do not fit that description. They were shipped to Fisher Foods after He-Bo asked it to “purchase certain onions.” They were bagged for sale and even bore sales invoices reflecting their sale price and expected remittance of the price to the Metter Banking Company. In this posture, they had long since left the state of “growing or to be grown.”
But as for the deep question whether the onions were onions before they were accounts, to pose the question is to admit the answer, which is, that if Fisher Foods’ interest could attach before the onions were sold, so could the bank’s interest in accounts and contract rights, “whether now or hereafter acquired” and whether the rights of sale were “earned by performance.” OCGA § 11-9-106. And if the line is so dim as to be discerned only with the most searching philosophical acuity, and even then not clearly, then at best we have conflicting security interests, in which case the bank takes priority in time of filing or perfection. OCGA § 11-9-312 (5) (a).

Motion for rehearing denied.

*446Decided May 20, 1987
Rehearing denied June 25, 1987
Carroll Van Reynolds, for appellant.
Gerald M. Edenfield, Michael J. Classens, for appellee.