1. The history of the privity rule in Mississippi following Mason is interesting. Relying heavily on Judge Magruder’s opinion, the Fifth Circuit held in Grey v. Hayes–Sammons Chem. Co., 310 F.2d 291 (5th Cir.1962), that under Mississippi law a lack of privity was not a bar to a claim by a Mississippi consumer against a manufacturer of a cotton spray. The Fifth Circuit reached similar conclusions in Necaise v. Chrysler Corp., 335 F.2d 562 (5th Cir.

1964), and Putman v. Erie City Mfg. Co., 338 F.2d 911 (5th Cir. 1964). Finally, the Mississippi Supreme Court, in State Stove Mfg. Co. v. Hodges, 189 So. 2d 113 (Miss. 1966), certiorari denied sub nom. Yates v. Hodges, 386 U.S. 912, 87 S.Ct. 860, 17 L.Ed.2d 784 (1967), reconsidered the privity question and overruled its decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Myers. In doing so, the court did not cite either the First Circuit’s decision in Mason or the series of decisions in the Fifth Circuit.