interest had properly been perfected under a certificate of title statute. Id., 168 A.2d at 603. Similarly, in Associates Discount Corp. v. Rattan Chevrolet, Inc., 462 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.1970), the Texas Supreme Court held that the purchaser of a new car took free of the security interest created by the dealer, even though the lender refused to give up the car’s MSO. Id. at 550. The title statute in that case had provided that the exposure of a car for sale “shall not affect the rights of any mortgagee as against all third parties.” Id. at 548. The court, citing U.C.C. § 1-104, found that the UCC and the title statute were “in pari materia” and therefore that section 9-307 still applied. Id. at 548-49; see also Cunningham v. Camelot Motors, Inc., 138 N.J.Super. 489, 351 A.2d 402 (1975)' (<HOLDING>); Foy v. First Nat’l Bank, 868 F.2d 251 (7th
holding that purchaser of used car from dealer was buyer in ordinary course under sections 9307 and 2403 even though lender still held certificate of title holding that a purchaser of a vehicle was a buyer in the ordinary course of business even though the car dealer did not provide the certificate of title at the time of the sale holding that seller carried insurance for benefit of buyer and held proceeds in trust for buyer when seller agreed to maintain insurance until possession date but bam burned before buyer took possession holding that purchaser was buyer in the ordinary course despite fact that lender still held mso holding that a purchaser may be a buyer in the ordinary course and defeat a security interest even if no insistence that the mso accompany delivery