concurring specially.
I concur in the result reached by the majority which is to reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of the appellees. I do so because, after a thorough review of the record, I agree with the majority that "we cannot say, as a matter of law, that the CB radio was so affixed to the automobile as to constitute an accession.”
However, I do not agree with the majority’s determination that Passieu v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 58 Ga. App. 691 (199 SE2d 775) (1938), should no longer be followed. The effect of the majority opinion is to *34overrule or at least disapprove Passieu. Even assuming that the vitality and logical consistency of the continuing body of law would be served by overruling Passieu (a proposition with which I personally disagree), this case is simply not the vehicle with which to so affect stare decisis in this area of the law. Passieu involved the claim of an unpaid seller retaining a security interest in tires and tubes attached to a vehicle by the owner who gave the claimant a security interest. Passieu did not involve a claim based upon a security interest in the vehicle itself; this case does. However, this case does not involve the seller of the CB radio and does not adjudicate the effect of the attachment to the vehicle of the CB radio on a security interest which might have been retained in said radio. If what I perceive to be a very logical and rational distinction between the holder of a security interest in a small chattel affixed to a larger one and the holder of a security interest in the larger chattel is to be disapproved, such action must await another case and another day. To me it is significant that the majority has — and I think properly so — relied upon the clearly applicable language in Passieu as the majority’s "guide for determining the degree to which one chattel must be attached to another in order to constitute an accession.”
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge McMurray and Judge Shulman join in this special concurrence.