Van Diest Supply Co. v. Shelby County State Bank

425 F.3d 437, 59 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 1089 (2005)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Van Diest Supply Co. v. Shelby County State Bank

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
425 F.3d 437, 59 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 1089 (2005)

Facts

Hennings Feed and Crop Care (Hennings) entered into a security agreement with Van Diest Supply Co. (Van Diest) (plaintiff). In 1983 Hennings purchased inventory from Van Diest for its agricultural-products business and gave Van Diest a purchase-money security interest specifically in the inventory Van Diest sold to Hennings and in the proceeds from the sale of this inventory. Hennings operated by commingling the inventory purchased from different suppliers, which was identical. Hennings did not separate or track the inventory by the company supplying the products, and Hennings never knew how much of its inventory was from any particular supplier. In 1998 Hennings entered into a financing agreement with Shelby County State Bank (the bank) (defendant) and gave the bank a security interest in Hennings’s accounts receivables. Under the agreement, the bank made advances to Hennings, and the bank collected on receivables the bank purchased. Hennings’s customers made payment directly to the bank, or Hennings gave checks directly to the bank for these accounts. In June 1999, Hennings failed to make a payment to Van Diest on a shipment of inventory. After Van Diest demanded payment in full, in August 1999, Hennings filed for bankruptcy. Hennings did not have enough assets to pay both Van Diest and the bank, so Van Diest demanded that the bank turn over money from the receivables the bank had collected in an effort to recoup the proceeds from the sale of inventory Van Diest had supplied to Hennings. The bank refused, and Hennings brought suit, accusing the bank of converting its property. The bank moved for summary judgment. The district court in Illinois ruled that Van Diest did not provide evidence identifying its proceeds. Therefore, Van Diest did not establish that it had a security interest in the proceeds that the bank had collected. Van Diest appealed, arguing above as it did below that it could identify the proceeds attributable to its interest by showing the percentage of inventory sold on the day of each sale that was supplied by Van Diest.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Williams, 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 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 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 899,000 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
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 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