Orix is relying on the phrase “and property, wherever located, now or hereafter belonging to the Mortgagor” to support its argument that the description was sufficient to cover the amounts payable under the BFI agreement. Section 9.110 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code governs the sufficiency of collateral descriptions in a security agreement. It states, in pertinent part: ... any description of personal property or real estate is sufficient for the purposes of this chapter whether or not it is specific if it reasonably identifies what is described. Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 9.110 (Tex. UCC) (Vernon 1991). The commentary under this section states that the test of the sufficiency of a description is whether the description does the job assigned to it, that is, does the (1982) (<HOLDING>); James Talcott, Inc. v. Franklin Nat’l Bank of
holding description all personal property sufficient to cover equipment holding that description all inventory accounts machinery equipment finished products and products being manufactured also everything connected with said business in any way sufficient to cover trailers holding that words which expressly refer to adequate legal description provide nucleus of description that is legally sufficient for statute of frauds holding description all tangible personal property now owned by the debtor or which may hereafter be acquired sufficient to cover equipment holding description all of the goods then owned or to be owned in the future sufficient to cover equipment and vehicles