Murdock Acceptance Corp. v. Woodham
Mississippi Supreme Court
208 So. 2d 56 (1968)

- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Maymie Woodham (plaintiff) obtained a judgment against Mr. and Mrs. T. C. Parks (defendants) in 1964. Parks owned and operated Parks Auto Sales, a vehicle dealership. Parks Auto Sales financed its inventory through floor planning, also known as trust-receipt financing. Parks Auto Sales entered into a secured transaction that involved pledging the vehicles on the lot as security for a loan from Murdock Acceptance Corporation. Each year, Parks Auto Sales would execute and record a statement saying that the vehicles were held in trust for the benefit of the lender and the sale of the vehicles would be for the sole purpose of repaying the loan. However, in 1965, Mr. Parks died. Mrs. Parks continued to operate the dealership and granted power-of-attorney to Murdock Acceptance to file the appropriate trust receipts. At least two trust statements were signed, but the statements were not recorded in the chancery clerk’s office. On December 14, 1965, Woodham obtained a writ of execution. The next day, at approximately 9 a.m., Murdock Acceptance recorded a financing statement. At approximately 11 a.m., the sheriff gave notice to Mrs. Parks that he was levying six vehicles pursuant to the writ of execution. Murdock Acceptance argued that the levy was invalid.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rodgers, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 821,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.