enable the debtor to acquire rights in or the use of collateral if such value is in fact so used. There is no question but that the Bank qualified as the holder of a purchase money security interest with respect to the note, security agreement and financing statement signed by Mrs. Gillie. However, the second and third notes are another matter. Prior to the enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code by the Texas Legislature, the substitution of a new note for a note secured by a chattel mortgage did not discharge the mortgage unless the parties intended discharge. The parties’ intent had to be evidenced by something other than the substitution. 51 Tex.Jur.2d Rev., Part 2, Secured Transactions § 280 (1963). A renewal of the debt by implication resulted in renewal of the security — unless (<HOLDING>); Franklin v. ITT Financial Services (In re
holding that a note which was a consolidation of the debtors previous notes did not give rise to a pmsi holding that under north dakota law consolidation of a note secured by a pmsi in farm machinery with other goods resulted in a novation destroying the creditors pmsi holding that a creditors pmsi in goods sold to debtors did not survive consolidation of the original installment contract with a later contract for the purchase of additional goods holding that under colorado law refinancing of a purchase money loan whereby an old note and security agreement were canceled and replaced by a new note and security agreement did not automatically extinguish the creditors pmsi in the debtors furniture the parties did not intend the new note to extinguish the original debt and security interest in that identical collateral remained almost no new money was advanced and the document specifically stated an intent to continue the pmsi holding that alleged violations of a state statute did not give rise to federal constitutional claims