Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 75-3-309 (2026)

Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if:
- (1) The person seeking to enforce the instrument:
  - (i) Was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred; or
  - (ii) Has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred;
- (2) The loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure; and
- (3) The person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.

(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, Section 75-3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.

Laws, 1992, ch. 420, § 35; Laws, 2010, ch. 506, § 18, eff. 7/1/2010.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2000–2000 · leading case: Greenville Riverboat, LLC v. Less, Getz & Lipman, P.L.L.C., 131 F. Supp. 2d 842 (S.D. Miss. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Greenville Riverboat, LLC v. Less, Getz & Lipman, P.L.L.C., 131 F. Supp. 2d 842 (S.D. Miss. 2000). · cites it 3× “6 Though GMC does not currently possess the original note, in the court’s opinion, the note is still enforceable pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 75-3-309. 7 Premier’s second argument, that the description of collateral in GMC’s security agreement is not sufficient to create an…”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-3-309(a) — 1 case

Greenville Riverboat, LLC v. Less, Getz & Lipman, P.L.L.C., 131 F. Supp. 2d 842 (S.D. Miss. 2000). “6 Though GMC does not currently possess the original note, in the court’s opinion, the note is still enforceable pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 75-3-309. 7 Premier’s second argument, that the description of collateral in GMC’s security agreement is not sufficient to create an…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.