Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-302 (2026)
Law governing perfection and priority of agricultural liens
✓ current as of July 2026
While farm products are located in a jurisdiction, the local law of that jurisdiction governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of an agricultural lien on the farm products.
Former 1972 Code § 75-9-302 [Codes, 1942, § 41A:9-302; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 9-302; Laws, 1977, ch. 452, § 15; Laws, 1986, ch. 401, § 1; Laws, 1990, ch. 384, § 50; Laws, 1996, ch. 468, § 62, eff. 7/1/1996] is now found in comparable provisions enacted at §§ 75-9-309, 75-9-310, and 75-9-311 by Laws, 2001, ch. 495, § 1. Present § 75-9-302 was enacted by Laws, 2001, ch. 495, § 1, eff. 1/1/2002.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1990–2004 · leading case: TXG Intrastate Pipeline Co. v. Grossnickle, 716 So. 2d 991 (Miss. 1997).
TXG Intrastate Pipeline Co. v. Grossnickle, 716 So. 2d 991 (Miss. 1997). “*1022 See Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-302 (2)(Supp. 1997).”
W.C. Fore Trucking Co. v. Biloxi Prestress Concrete, Inc., 98 F.3d 204 (5th Cir. 1996). “Fore argues, further, that even if the transaction falls within the purview of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, there is an alternative ground to support the validity of the security interest claimed by Coast in the debtor’s finished product securing all material and…”
Mullen v. Green Tree Fin. Corp., 730 So. 2d 9 (Miss. 1998). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-9-302(1)(d) (Supp.1997).”
Ford Motor Credit v. STATE BANK & TRUST, 571 So. 2d 937 (Miss. 1990). “[5] The appellee argues that its interest is perfected because of Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-302 (4). This argument is wholly without merit.”
In Re Shaw, 209 B.R. 393 (Bankr. N.D. Miss. 1996). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-9-302(l)(d). The terms “purchase money security interest” and “consumer goods” are both defined terms in the Mississippi version of the Uniform Commercial Code: § 75-9-107.”
Merchants Nat'l Bank of Vicksburg v. Bank of Mississippi, Vicksburg, 584 So. 2d 433 (Miss. 1991). “MNB argues that it was not required to record its assignment because the assignment was of a beneficial interest in property owned by the trust, pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-302 (l)(c) which provides, (1) a financing statement must be filed to perfect all security…”
St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Merchants & Marine Bank (Miss. 2003). “" Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-302 (1)(e). The comment to the UCC explains the exception: The purpose of the subsection (1)(e) exemption is to save from ex post facto invalidation casual or isolated assignments: some accounts receivable statutes were so broadly drafted that all…”
St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Merchants & Marine Bank, 882 So. 2d 766 (Miss. 2004). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 75-9-302(1)(e). The comment to the UCC explains the exception: The purpose of the subsection (1)(e) exemption is to save from ex post facto invalidation casual or isolated assignments: some accounts receivable statutes were so broadly drafted that all…”
Bobby Regan v. Citizens Bk (Miss. 1993). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-302 (3)(b). 2. Most jurisdictions have provided exceptions to the Motor Vehicle Title Act to protect innocent purchasers and goods purchased in the ordinary course of business.”
TXG Intrastate Pipeline Co v. Dean v. Grossnickle (Miss. 1994). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-302 (2)(Supp. 1997).”
Regan v. Citizens Bank, 675 So. 2d 1239 (Miss. 1996). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-9-302(3)(b). . Most jurisdictions have provided exceptions to the Motor Vehicle Title Act to protect innocent purchasers and goods purchased in the ordinary course of business.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-302(1)(d) — 1 case
Mullen v. Green Tree Fin. Corp., 730 So. 2d 9 (Miss. 1998). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-9-302(1)(d) (Supp.1997).”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-302(1)(e) — 1 case
St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Merchants & Marine Bank, 882 So. 2d 766 (Miss. 2004). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 75-9-302(1)(e). The comment to the UCC explains the exception: The purpose of the subsection (1)(e) exemption is to save from ex post facto invalidation casual or isolated assignments: some accounts receivable statutes were so broadly drafted that all…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-302(3)(b) — 2 cases
Ford Motor Credit v. STATE BANK & TRUST, 571 So. 2d 937 (Miss. 1990). “[5] The appellee argues that its interest is perfected because of Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-302 (4). This argument is wholly without merit.”
Regan v. Citizens Bank, 675 So. 2d 1239 (Miss. 1996). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-9-302(3)(b). . Most jurisdictions have provided exceptions to the Motor Vehicle Title Act to protect innocent purchasers and goods purchased in the ordinary course of business.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-302(l)(d) — 1 case
In Re Shaw, 209 B.R. 393 (Bankr. N.D. Miss. 1996). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-9-302(l)(d). The terms “purchase money security interest” and “consumer goods” are both defined terms in the Mississippi version of the Uniform Commercial Code: § 75-9-107.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-302(l)(e) — 1 case
W.C. Fore Trucking Co. v. Biloxi Prestress Concrete, Inc., 98 F.3d 204 (5th Cir. 1996). “Fore argues, further, that even if the transaction falls within the purview of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, there is an alternative ground to support the validity of the security interest claimed by Coast in the debtor’s finished product securing all material and…”
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.