Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

MBank Alamo National Association v. Raytheon Company d/b/a Raytheon Medical Systems

886 F.2d 1449 (1989)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...

MBank Alamo National Association v. Raytheon Company d/b/a Raytheon Medical Systems

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

886 F.2d 1449 (1989)

Facts

Prior to 1983, MBank Alamo National Association (MBank) and E. I. DuPont de Nemours Company, Inc. (DuPont) (plaintiffs) loaned money to Howe X-ray (Howe). In exchange, Howe granted MBank and DuPont security interests in Howe’s current and future accounts receivable. Howe experienced financial trouble and had difficulty obtaining further financing. In January 1983, Raytheon Company (defendant), an X-ray equipment manufacturer, agreed to send Howe X-ray equipment for Howe to sell to one of its customers. In exchange, Howe assigned the accounts receivable tied to the sale, delivery, and installment of the X-ray equipment to Raytheon. Between July 1983 and December 1984, Raytheon collected over $850,000 on the accounts receivable. In November 1984, Howe defaulted on its loans to MBank and DuPont. Pursuant to their security interests in all of Howe’s accounts receivable, MBank and DuPont demanded that Raytheon pay them the amount that Raytheon had collected from the specific accounts it was assigned. Raytheon refused. MBank and DuPont filed a conversion lawsuit against Raytheon in federal district court, seeking to recover the $850,000 that Raytheon collected from Howe’s accounts receivable. Raytheon opposed the lawsuit, claiming that it had a purchase-money security interest (PMSI) in the accounts receivable that it was assigned by Howe and, therefore, that its interest in the accounts was superior to MBank’s and DuPont’s interests. The district court found that Raytheon did not have a PMSI in the accounts receivable and that Raytheon’s interests were subordinate to MBank’s and DuPont’s interests because those interests were perfected first. The district court granted summary judgment for MBank and DuPont. Raytheon appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Reavley, J.)

Dissent (Goldberg, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 35,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership