holding that the secured party did not waive its security interest in the collateral cattle
How later courts described this case
- holding that the secured party did not waive its security interest in the collateral cattle
- conditional consent for sale existed, but the condition was not met and the security interest continued
- plaintiff's security interest in livestock continued through unauthorized sale by farmer and resale by farmer's transferee
- no waiver of express provision of security agreement through course of conduct
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Farmers State Bank v. Farmland Foods, Inc., 225 Neb. 1 (1987)
186 Neb. 668, 186 N.W.2d 99, 104 (1971) (no waiver of express provision of security agreement through course of conduct), overruled by Farmers State Bank v. Farmland Foods, Inc., 225 Neb. 1, 402 N.W.2d 277, 282 (1987);
The opinion
Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting.
I concur in the opinion of Newton, J., that the circumstances in this case established both an authorization of the sale by the plaintiff, which waived its security interest in the cattle sold, and a ratification of the sale by the acceptance of the proceeds. See, Farmers’ Nat. Bank v. Missouri Livestock Commission Co., 53 F. 2d 991 ; First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Stock Yards Loan Co., 65 F. 2d 226 ; Seymour v. Standard Live Stock Commission Co., 110 Neb. 185 , 192 N. W. 398 ; Warrick v. Rasmussen, 112 Neb. 299 , 199 N. W. 544 . These long-standing principles of law and equity have not been displaced by any provision of the code. See § 1-103, U. C. C.
McCown, J., joins in this dissent.