Allison B. Humphreys

This case involved a taxpayer's suit seeking a refund of Tennessee use taxes paid under protest on the licensing and sale of computer software. The Chancellor granted summary judgment for the Commissioner, upholding the tax assessment, and the taxpayer appealed. The court affirmed, holding that the Retail Sales Tax Act imposes a use tax on computer software. The core reasoning was that the 1978 legislative amendment defined "sale" to include transfers of computer software (treating it as tangible personal property) while exempting only in-house fabrication for personal use; because the Act equates use with sales and aims to tax both equally, the use tax applies to software acquired from others.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case concerned a dispute over ownership of a barn straddling the boundary between two neighboring properties in Tennessee, where the plaintiffs claimed title through their deed but the defendants asserted rights based on long-term possession by prior owners. The lower courts found that the defendants' predecessors had exercised adverse possession since at least 1971 by treating the barn as their own, paying taxes and maintenance costs, and granting only permissive use to the plaintiffs and their predecessors, and held that such permission did not interrupt the seven-year statutory period under T.C.A. § 28-2-103. The Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the statute barred the plaintiffs' action because the defendants' possession remained exclusive, continuous, open, and notorious despite the permission granted to others, as an owner's permissive entry does not constitute the required ouster or re-entry to reset the limitations clock. The court clarified that after the statutory period, title holders retain bare ownership but cannot sue to recover possession or use of the property.

property

This case concerned a bank's suit to recover the balance on a $24,900 corporate promissory note from Heatherly, who had signed an absolute and unconditional suretyship agreement along with other stockholders. After Heatherly resigned from the corporation, the remaining officers renewed the note without his signature following the forfeiture of the corporate charter; the trial court held Heatherly liable under the original suretyship contract and awarded principal, interest, and fees, but the Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the renewal discharged the underlying obligation. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, reinstating the trial judgment. It applied settled precedent that a renewal note does not discharge the original debt absent agreement by all parties, and that the burden to prove novation rests on the asserting party; because no such agreement existed and the suretyship contract remained in force, Heatherly stayed primarily liable for the debt and related costs.

business & regulatory

This Tennessee wrongful death case arose from a fatal head-on car collision in 1978, in which the plaintiff sued the defendants under the state's Wrongful Death Act seeking damages for the loss of his teenage son's life. The sole disputed issue on appeal was whether the trial court properly instructed the jury to subtract the deceased's probable living expenses from any award based on life expectancy and earning capacity. The Supreme Court of Tennessee held that the instruction was correct and affirmed the judgment, including an additur that raised the award to $75,000. The court reasoned that the Act limits recovery to pecuniary loss to the next of kin, which, consistent with interpretations of similar New York and Pennsylvania statutes, requires deducting the portion of earnings the decedent would have spent on personal maintenance rather than contributing to dependents. It further noted that the record contained sufficient evidence on the decedent's living habits to support the instruction and that jurors could draw on common experience to estimate future expenses.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Jones v. Jones, a husband and wife each sued the other for divorce; after a trial, both suits were dismissed because each had committed grounds for divorce, but on appeal the Court of Appeals granted the husband a divorce based on the wife's felony attempt to kill him. The case was remanded for division of property under T.C.A. § 36-825, and the trial court ordered equal division of all property, which the Court of Appeals then interpreted to cover only legal interests held by the parties. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted certiorari and remanded again, holding that the statute requires consideration of both legal and equitable interests in any property standing in either party's name at the time of divorce, and directing the trial court to allow the parties to present evidence on all such interests.

family lawproperty

The case involved two defendants charged in a two-count indictment with petit larceny and concealing stolen property after a wallet disappeared in a tavern; the jury acquitted them of larceny but convicted them of concealing stolen property. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether the verdicts were reversibly inconsistent because the acquittal negated an element of the concealment charge. The court decided that consistency between verdicts on separate counts is not required and affirmed the convictions. It reasoned that each count of an indictment is treated as a separate charge, so an acquittal on one cannot be res judicata as to another even when based on the same evidence, and that any inconsistency may stem from jury lenity or compromise without invalidating a conviction supported by the evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

Williamson County sued Twin Lawn Development Company and its surety for breach of a bond obligation to maintain subdivision roads, alleging damage from poor drainage and construction. Twin Lawn answered without seeking a more definite statement and impleaded a third-party defendant, who then moved for a more definite statement from Twin Lawn; Twin Lawn in turn sought one from the county. The trial court ordered the county to provide a more definite statement and dismissed the complaint when the county stood on its original pleading. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, holding that under Rule 12.08 the county's right to a more definite statement was waived by Twin Lawn's earlier answer and could not be revived by the third-party proceedings, as Rule 14 does not alter that waiver between the original parties. The court remanded for further proceedings on the third-party motion alone, emphasizing that the complaint satisfied Rule 8.01 pleading standards.

procedure

This case involved a bankruptcy trustee suing a bank for allegedly participating in the misappropriation of corporate funds by the company's president, who over three years deposited or cashed ten checks drawn on or payable to the company into his personal account or to third parties. The chancellor awarded the trustee the full amount of the checks plus interest, and the Court of Appeals affirmed liability on some checks while reversing on others. The Tennessee Supreme Court addressed the application of the Uniform Commercial Code, holding that the bank was liable for conversion on checks with forged endorsements under T.C.A. § 47-3-419 because the bank had notice of irregularities on the face of the instruments and could not claim holder-in-due-course status, even though some endorsements were effective under T.C.A. § 47-3-405. The court applied the general three-year statute of limitations for conversion of personal property, finding the action timely filed, and denied the petition to rehear.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned a dispute between two insurers over which policy covered liability for an accidental shooting injury that occurred when a shotgun discharged while being loaded into a car during a hunting trip. Travelers Insurance Company, the homeowner's insurer, had defended the underlying tort suit under reservation of rights, paid the judgment, and sought reimbursement from Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, the automobile liability insurer. The Chancellor ruled that Aetna's policy provided coverage and Travelers' policy excluded it. On appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court held both policies afforded primary coverage and required proration of the judgment, defense costs, and expenses. The court reasoned that Aetna's broad "arising out of...use, including loading and unloading" language encompassed the incident, while Travelers' exclusion applied only if the loading was the efficient and predominating cause of the injury, which the stipulated facts did not establish.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Woods v. Palmer, the plaintiff filed a claim against a decedent's estate under Tennessee law, but it was dismissed for failure to prosecute; after an unsuccessful attempt to set aside the dismissal and an unperfected appeal, the claim was refiled within one year under the savings statute § 28-106 T.C.A. The administratrix raised defenses of the nine-month statute of limitations (§ 30-513 T.C.A.) and res judicata, leading the probate court to dismiss the refiled claim. The Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed, holding that the savings statute applied because the original filing met the limitation period and the dismissal was on inconclusive grounds not foreclosing the merits. The court reasoned that the estate claim filing periods are statutes of limitation affecting only the remedy, not statutes of proscription, and relied on precedent from Rye v. DuPont Rayon Co. treating similar dismissals as allowing refiling within one year.

procedure

Herman Hall was indicted for first-degree burglary with intent to commit larceny after being apprehended while cutting a screen and partially opening the door to a residence at 1:15 a.m. using tools including a brake tool, pliers, and a screwdriver. He was convicted of attempt to commit a felony and sentenced to up to four years in prison, a judgment affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence for proving intent in such cases. The court ruled that intent to commit larceny may be inferred from evidence of a forcible attempt to enter a building containing valuables at night without an acceptable excuse, and found the evidence here—including the timing, tools, damage to the door, and Hall's actions—sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The court therefore affirmed the conviction.

criminal law

The case involved Vector Company, a Tennessee corporation, which purchased aircraft out of state, brought them to its Knoxville base, and used them for business travel including both intrastate and interstate flights; after an audit, the state assessed a use tax on the aircraft, which Vector paid under protest and then sued to recover. The Chancellor dismissed the suit, and the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the use tax applied. The court reasoned that the tax is complementary to the sales tax and applies to tangible personal property imported into the state for use after it comes to rest there, creating a taxable moment of storage or use in Tennessee even if the property is later used in interstate commerce; the statute does not provide for apportionment, and the Commerce Clause does not bar the tax under the facts presented. The court distinguished contrary authority from other states and rejected Vector's arguments that no taxable incident occurred or that the tax violated federal or state law.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by employee Mary Katherine Miller against Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, in which she was awarded temporary total disability benefits for an indefinite period following an alleged on-the-job injury. Aetna appealed, arguing lack of notice of the injury, that no compensable injury occurred, and that the award improperly failed to specify a time limit. The court did not reach the merits of these issues. Instead, it held that the appeal must be dismissed because the trial court's judgment was not final, as it addressed only temporary total disability while the complaint also sought permanent disability benefits, leaving other issues unresolved. Under longstanding Tennessee law, appeals lie only from final judgments that end the litigation, so the case was remanded for adjudication of all claims.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Gunther v. White, appellants sued to enjoin appellees from enforcing an acceleration clause in a deed of trust securing a promissory note on real property, which allowed the lender to declare the full balance due upon any transfer of the property without consent. The Chancellor granted appellees' motion to dismiss under Rule 12.02 for failure to state a claim, and the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed. The court held the due-on-sale acceleration provision valid and enforceable, reasoning that it is a standard contractual stipulation permitting lenders to demand repayment and adjust interest rates upon transfer, without any limiting language in the note or deed, and that its exercise to obtain higher rates does not implicate restraint of trade, public policy, or equitable forfeiture concerns. The opinion cited authorities recognizing such clauses as enforceable contract terms rather than penalties.

property

The case concerned whether a 1970 amendment to Tennessee's Non-Resident Motorist Act revived the Secretary of State's authority to accept service of process for a non-resident defendant after that authority had expired under the prior one-year limit following a 1969 accident. The trial court sustained the defendant's plea in abatement, and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the amendment did not apply retroactively to revive an expired agency. The court reasoned that statutes are presumed prospective unless clearly intended otherwise, and applying the amendment would disturb the defendant's vested right to be free from suit via that expired agency, as the statute creates a substantive agency relationship rather than a purely procedural rule.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved the confiscation of Harold Totty Jr.'s automobile after police officers discovered marijuana in it during a traffic stop for an improperly affixed license tag. The Commissioner of Safety ordered the vehicle confiscated for transporting contraband, but the trial court reversed this, finding the search unlawful. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court and reinstated the confiscation order, holding that the marijuana was in plain view of the officer who had a right to be in that position and was discovered inadvertently, satisfying the plain view doctrine for seizure without a warrant. The court reasoned that the officer's observation of the greenish substance in a partially open bag, combined with its smell, provided probable cause, and the subsequent search was incident to a lawful arrest.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a lawsuit by the Lamberts against Home Federal Savings and Loan Association and Marx & Bensdorf for specific performance of a contract to finance the construction of apartment buildings with a loan of $2,910,000 secured by real property, and for damages. The chancery court sustained the defendants' demurrers, finding the contract violated the Statute of Frauds requiring written agreements for land interests longer than one year. The Supreme Court of Tennessee agreed that the provided memoranda did not meet the requirements of the Statute of Frauds as they lacked essential contract terms, and additionally dismissed the appeal due to late filing of required documents under court rules.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a quo warranto action brought by the State of Tennessee on the relation of private individuals against the Minimum Salary Department of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, alleging diversion of funds and other malfeasance by its officers. The defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and failure to join an indispensable party (the parent church). The Chancellor overruled the motion and granted a discretionary appeal. The Tennessee Supreme Court, treating the motion as equivalent to a demurrer, affirmed the ruling, holding that the complaint's allegations must be accepted as true, that the court had jurisdiction over the Tennessee corporation as a separate entity, that the relators had standing under the quo warranto statute by posting security for costs, and that no indispensable party was missing. The majority also established stricter procedural requirements for future discretionary appeals from orders overruling motions to dismiss under Rule 12.02.

procedurereligious liberty

This case involved a dispute over uninsured motorist coverage in an automobile liability insurance policy issued by Travelers Indemnity Company to Bobby Hugh Crumley. After Crumley was injured in a collision with an uninsured motorist, his attorney obtained permission from Travelers' agent to file suit and pursue the insurer's subrogation claim, but did not provide notice of the suit's filing or copies of process as required by the policy. Travelers denied the claim based on the policy's exclusions and conditions regarding settlements, judgments, and notice without consent. The court held that Travelers' conduct in the correspondence constituted an implied waiver of those policy provisions, making it bound by the outcome of the underlying damage suit. The judgment in favor of Crumley was affirmed except for the statutory bad faith penalty, which was disallowed.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In Weaks v. Gress, the Gresses sued the Weaks in chancery court after purchasing property by warranty deed with a covenant against encumbrances, alleging that an existing judgment lien on Charles Weaks' interest in the tenancy-by-the-entirety property constituted a breach and clouded their title; they sought removal of the lien and damages, including against Helen Weaks' separate property if needed. The Weaks demurred, arguing that the property was conveyed free of the lien because only one tenant was the judgment debtor and that no cause of action existed against Helen Weaks. The trial court overruled the demurrer, and on discretionary appeal the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the state's lien of judgment statutes (T.C.A. sec. 25-501 et seq.), every alienable interest in land—including a husband's interest in a tenancy by the entirety—is subject to a judgment lien, making the conveyance a breach of the covenant against encumbrances. The court relied on precedents such as Ames v. Norman and In re Guardianship of Plowman establishing the alienability of such interests, and remanded for further proceedings on whether Helen Weaks had also made the covenant and any other defenses.

property