Court Opinion

ID: 9658017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:44:00.959656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:50.648173
License: Public Domain

WUEST, Acting Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. In its answer, Appellant denied the cattle sold were those covered under the security agreement. None of the affidavits, interrogatories, depositions, or pleadings, resolved this fact issue. On appeal, Ft. Pierre Livestock stoutly maintains the cattle sold were not those secured under the security agreement. Its brief states it thus:
It is not disputed that Mr. West owned the cattle sold, however, it is disputed that Ag Credit had a security interest in those ‘particular’ cattle so as to be able to maintain a conversion action.
In my opinion, it is possible, as Appellant claims, that the cattle sold were a different herd than those cattle covered by the security agreement. That is a factual question which should not be ascertained by a motion for summary judgment. Wilson v. Great Northern Railway Company, 83 S.D. 207, 157 N.W.2d 19 (1968).
If, upon trial, it is determined the particular cattle sold were those covered by the security agreement, then in my opinion the Plaintiff/Appellee may recover because Appellant had actual notice.