{
  "id": 1879920,
  "name": "GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. M & C MANUFACTURING, INC. d/b/a MANUFACTURING CO., INC. and Ruby CARRAWAY",
  "name_abbreviation": "General Electric Co. v. M & C Manufacturing, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1984-07-02",
  "docket_number": "84-96",
  "first_page": "110",
  "last_page": "112",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "283 Ark. 110"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "671 S.W.2d 189"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "610 P.2d 1001",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10450109
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/p2d/610/1001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "374 So.2d 6",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "So. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        9568038
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/so2d/374/0006-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "524 S.W.2d 525",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10127868
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw2d/524/0525-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 221,
    "char_count": 2985,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.842,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8667422717807663e-07,
      "percentile": 0.72561276738528
    },
    "sha256": "fe3e6f47cc1b252dffc73f32fc82fa079872b3573070a6f748fdb3bee16c88ca",
    "simhash": "1:df0fdcca446ede69",
    "word_count": 485
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:00:41.772495+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. M & C MANUFACTURING, INC. d/b/a MANUFACTURING CO., INC. and Ruby CARRAWAY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nThe question before us is whether a security interest in certificates of deposit, perfected by possession, is superior to a judgment against the owner of the certificates. The trial court was right in holding the possessory security interest superior.\nThe appellant obtained a judgment of almost $27,000 against the appellees M & C Manufacturing and Ruby Carraway on July 16, 1982. Prior to the judgment Mrs. Carraway had assigned eleven certificates of deposit to the First State Bank of Warren to secure a loan and the bank held these certificates. Five of the certificates were issued by the Warren Bank and six by another bank. The certificates were all either non-negotiable or non-transferable, or both. The bank was served with a writ of garnishment, and it answered claiming its lien.\nThe appellant\u2019s argument is that the bank did not file security agreements to perfect its claims as required by the Uniform Commercial Code. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 85-9-302 (Supp. 1983). The appellees concede that security agreements were not filed but argue it was not necessary.\nThe parties agree that the case hinges on whether the certificates are \u201cinstruments\u201d as defined in the Uniform Commercial Code since security interests in instruments are perfected through possession. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 85-9-305 (Supp. 1983). Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 85-9-105 (1) (i) (Supp. 1983) provides:\n\u2018Instrument\u2019 means a negotiable instrument, or a security or any other writing which evidences a right to the payment of money and is not itself a security agreement or lease and is of a type which is in ordinary course of business transferred by delivery with any necessary indorsement or assignment; ....\nWe agree with the weight of authority in holding that a certificate of deposit is an \u201cinstrument.\u201d\nIn First National Bank in Grand Prairie v. Lone Star Life Insurance, 524 S.W.2d 525 (Tex. App. 1975), a bank held a non-negotiable C.D. pursuant to a security agreement. One of the issues, as in the case at bar, was whether possession was sufficient to perfect the security interest. The court held that the C.D. was an instrument because it evidences a right to payment of money and is transferable by delivery of possession in the ordinary course of business. See also Citizens National Bank of Orlando v. Bornstein, 374 So.2d 6 (Fla. 1979); Wightman v. American Nat. Bank of Riverton, 610 P.2d 1001 (Wyo. 1980). The fact that the certificates were non-negotiable and non-transferable in no way prevents them from being instruments because Ark. Siat. Ann. \u00a7 85-9-105 (1) (i) provides an instrument is \u201c . . . any other writing which evidences a right to the payment of money\u201d and indeed that describes a certificate of deposit.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert C. Lowry, for appellant.",
      "Richard L. Roper, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. M & C MANUFACTURING, INC. d/b/a MANUFACTURING CO., INC. and Ruby CARRAWAY\n84-96\n671 S.W.2d 189\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered July 2, 1984\nRobert C. Lowry, for appellant.\nRichard L. Roper, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0110-01",
  "first_page_order": 138,
  "last_page_order": 140
}