WPC  # VUNa % 0U< w@ 4" 6 E 05M 0D 0J 0T 0^d 0h 0r* 0| 0 0 1u. 0dU> BEB)bDC AMU*Elv~b D3v 0@ AO&u 0D; D/ B HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0nLH(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($  TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalTXxXXX-Bu Z$Arrus BT Roman DHEVFGHIJKLӀVD NF,Fr3|xV((3F$ !  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXt XXX   `   0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman d% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd-$C << G<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#!      \RA'\  &&   YYY FILED&XAugust27,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk   b !#d#!      \RA'\   $       ӀThedailysalesopportunityistheamountoftobaccothatmaybesoldwithinacertaintobaccomarket.Holdertookissuewithhisallocationofdailysalesopportunity,assertingthatallocationshouldbebasedonperformanceratherthantheamountofeachwarehousesfloorspace.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'h""""'dxdStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . !      \RA'\  7cXXdd7  \RA'\ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ WESTERNSECTIONATNASHVILLE  ______________________________________________ STANLEYHOLDERd/b/aHOLDERSTOBACCOWAREHOUSE,  PlaintiffAppellee,Vs.       C.A.No.01A019702CV00080       TrousdaleCircuitNo.2959010 BILLYM.CELSOR;BILLYF.CELSOR;E.J.PARKER,JR.;ROBERTN.RICKMAN;LEWISBEASLEY,JR.andHARTSVILLETOBACCOBOARDOFTRADE,  DefendantsAppellants.____________________________________________________________________________@ FROMTHETROUSDALECOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT@ THEHONORABLEBOBBYCAPERS,JUDGE@ JackyO.Bellar;Bellar&BellarofCarthage@ EddieTaylor;Donoho,Taylor&TaylorofHartsville@ ForAppellee@ CharlesW.BoneandKeithC.Dennen;Wyatt,@ Tarrant&CombsofHendersonville@ ForAppellants@ REVERSEDANDREMANDED @ Opinionfiled:R%'$A1-j|\` . `@R        W.FRANKCRAWFORD,        PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.CONCUR:ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGEDAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE Ǜ Defendants,BillyM.Celsor,BillyF.Celsor,E.J.Parker,Jr.,RobertN.Rickman,LewisBeasley,Jr.,andtheHartsvilleTobaccoBoardofTrade,appealthetrialcourtsdismissalofthecasebasedonalackofjurisdiction.Thedefendantshadmotionforsummaryjudgmentpendingagainsttheplaintiff,StanleyHolderd/b/aHoldersTobaccoWarehouse(Holder),ontheissueoftheamountofdamagesallegedlysufferedasaresultofthewrongfulissuanceofaninjunction. OnSeptember21,1992,Holderfiledacomplaintandmotionforatemporaryinjunctioncontestinghisallocationofdailysalesopportunityforthe199293tobaccoseasonbytheHartsvilleTobaccoBoardofTrade(Board). (   ׀OnOctober21,1992,thetrialcourtgrantedatemporaryinjunctionorderingthedefendantstorecognizeHoldersclaimtoadditionalfloorspaceforthe199293tobaccosellingseason.OnJuly6,1994,thetrialcourtenteredafinalordermakingthetemporaryinjunctionapermanentinjunctionastothe199293tobaccoseason.Holderfurnishedtheinjunctionbondrequiredbythecourt.Thedefendantsappealedthetrialcourtsfinalorder.Onappeal,thisCourtheldthatthetrialcourterredinissuingtheinjunctionbecausethetrialcourt waswithoutjurisdictiontointerfereintotheactionsofaprivatecorporation. Holderv.Celsor ,914S.W.2d496,501(Tenn.App.), perm.app.denied ,(Tenn.1995).ThisCourtreversedtheissuanceofamandatoryinjunctionbythetrialcourtandremandedthecausetothetrialcourtfor furthernecessaryproceedings. Id.  Onremand,thedefendantsfiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentonAugust9,1996withrespecttothedamagestheyallegedlysufferedasaresultoftheissuanceoftheinjunction,andHolderfiledaresponsethereto.Afterahearingonthemotionforsummaryjudgment,thetrialcourtenteredanorderonJanuary6,1997dismissingthecase.Initsorder,thetrialcourtstatedthat,inlightofthisCourtsopinionstatingthatthetrialcourtlackedjurisdictiontointerfereintheactionsofaprivatecorporation,thetrialcourtdidnothavejurisdictiontoconsiderthedefendantsclaimsfordamagesincurredasaresultofthewrongfulissuanceoftheinjunction. Thedefendantsappealthetrialcourtsdismissalandpresentthefollowingissuesforreview,asstatedintheirbrief: ̜ 8 8 1)Uponremand,followingthedecisionbythisCourtthatthetrialcourterredinissuinganinjunction,didthetrialcourterrindismissingthedefendantsclaimfordamagessufferedasaresultofthewrongfulissuanceoftheinjunctionforlackofjurisdiction?8 8 2)Arethedefendantsentitledtosummaryjudgmentinlightofthefailureoftheplaintifftopresentanycompetentevidenceofagenuineissueofmaterialfactwithrespecttothedamagesincurredbythedefendantsbyvirtueoftheissuanceoftheinjunction?̜ Intheirfirstissue,thedefendantscontendthatthetrialcourterredindismissingthecasebasedonalackofjurisdictionbecauseatrialcourthasjurisdictiontoawarddamagestoapartythathasbeenwrongfullyenjoinedeventhoughthecourtlackedtheauthoritytoissuetheinjunctioninthefirstplace. HoldercontendsthatthetrialcourtinterpretedthisCourtsdecisiontomeanthatitlackedsubjectmatterjurisdictionandthatthecasescitedbythedefendantsaredistinguishablebecausethosecasesdidnotinvolvealackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction. Wemustrespectfullydisagreewithplaintiffandthetrialcourt.In Holder ,thisCourtnotedthewellsettledprincipleoflaw, thatthecourtsinTennesseeshouldnotinterfereintheaffairsofanassociationorprivatecorporationintheabsenceofproofofbadfaithorfraudonthepartofthoseintrustedwithitsmanagement.914S.W.2dat496.Clearlythecourthasjurisdictiontomakethedeterminationofwhetherthereisbadfaithorfraud,andfailureofproofinthisregarddoesnotrendertheproceedingvoidabinitioasinthecaseoflackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction.Tothecontrary,itismerelyafailureofproofonthepartoftheplaintiffasinanyothercase,thusresultinginthewrongfulissuanceoftheinjunction. TheinjunctionbondrequiredbyTenn.R.Civ.P.65.05isspecificallyfor thepaymentofsuchcostsanddamagesasmaybeincurredorsufferedbyanypersonwhoisfoundtohavebeenwrongfullyrestrainedorenjoined.Tenn.R.Civ.P.65.05. Asuretysliabilitymaybeenforcedonmotionwithoutthenecessityofanindependentaction.Tenn.R.Civ.P.65A. Thetrialcourtissuinganinjunctionlaterdeterminedtobewrongfullyissuedhasjurisdictiontodeterminetheamountofdamagesincurredbyvirtueofthewrongfullyissuedinjunction. SeeSmithv.Rodgers ,677S.W.2d1,4(Tenn.App.1984); Jamesv.Williams, 20Tenn.App.420,99S.W.2d831(1936). Inthecasebeforeus,thetrialcourtissuedaninjunctionuponplaintiffpostinganinjunctionbondasrequiredbyTenn.R.Civ.P.65.05.Itwasdeterminedthatthefactsdidnotwarranttheissuanceoftheinjunction;therefore,theinjunctionwaswrongfullyissued.Undertheaboveauthorities,thetrialcourthasjurisdictiontoassessdamagesforthewrongfulissuanceoftheinjunction. Intheirsecondissue,thedefendantscontendthattheyareentitledtosummaryjudgmentontheissueoftheamountofdamagestheyallegedlysufferedasaresultoftheinjunction.TheyarguethattheyestablishedthattheylostprofitsasaresultoftheinjunctionandthatHolderfailedtosetforthspecificfactstocreateagenuineissueofmaterialfactontheissueofdamages.Therefore,theyarguethattheyareentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw. Ontheotherhand,HoldercontendsthatdamagesmustbeprovenunderTenn.R.Civ.P.56.03andarguesthatheraisedagenuineissueofmaterialfact.Inaddition,Holderarguesthatfurtherdiscoveryisnecessaryontheissueofdamagesandthatthedefendantsfailedtoestablishthattheywereentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.Moreover,HolderarguesthatthedefendantsdidnotcomplywithTenn.R.Civ.P.65Arequiringnoticebeforeproceedingagainstasurety. Atthetimethetrialcourtdismissedthiscasebasedonlackofjurisdiction,thedefendantshadasummaryjudgmentmotionpendingbeforethecourt.Givenourreversalofthedismissal,wedeclinetoruleonthisissueinthiscasewithoutfirstallowingthetrialcourttheopportunitytodoso. Thedefendantsalsoaskthatifthereisaremand,thisCourtdirectthetrialjudgetorecusehimselfbecauseofbiasoralackofimpartiality.Weagaindeclinetodoasthedefendantsrequest.Ifgroundsexistforrecusal,themattershouldfirstbepresentedtothetrialjudge. Accordingly,theorderoftrialcourtisreversed,andthiscauseisremandedforsuchfurtherproceedingsasnecessary.Costsofappealareassessedagainsttheappellee.       _________________________________       W.FRANKCRAWFORD,       PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S. CONCUR:____________________________________ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE ____________________________________ DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE