WPC  0.VT1#N.+`{"}oHB3BBVFN@ ; 'Qh ys+3>YCVn'&ͺΔ B[?)bnq9L""\ok:'shc^mp--B9$RM1VEjMNZT`Κ"bv*{$Ǎ*5Bƿ0s)Q<75gPu"]|&(/"k 0O<pe{gASII?4%3 CwsPA/9|N&Y&k.G'{t @>:bk"PÁd#*# LU:W % 0(w@4"*U:---------------------- AQg 0D~ 0D 0D  D/J By B D3 HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl,  AZ"Arial RegularX($ bDcdDefghDiDjӀt~-&!"#$3|xt ""   X_XXX 2kX X_   Ad FILED X_X 2k  January27,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxd dP Pd'''''dxd !  jjTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7_XXdXXd7  TXXtjr )<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP,  rjttttjjttt@   INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEtt )>.*jx` `@E` 8ttxP  tߛt@(ATNASHVILLE X_XTԈ  ̛̜RAYMONDO.HAMPTON, 8   )     0      8   ) Plaintiff/Appellant,   8   ) Nr    0      8   )  AppealNo. 4X    0      8   )  01A019712CH00721 >  МVS.  0      8   ) $    0      8   )  DavidsonChancery     0      8   )  No.972692I   TENNESSEETRUCKSALES,INC.  )   @      H!  #    andDONALDA.TOMLINSON, 8   )    0      8   ) Defendants/Appellees. 8   ) d @d d ! G XX_ ORDERONPETITIONTOREHEAR :  X_X  G    0 TheappelleeshavefiledaPetitiontoRehearassertingthatthecourtoverlookedtherecordfromtheformercaseindecidingthattherecorddidnotcontainevidenceonwhichajudgmentofresjudicata(orcollateralestoppel)couldbebased.Attachedtothepetitionarecopiesofthepapersfiledinthechancerycourtintheformercasewithadocumentcalled JointNoticeofFilingaddressedtotheCourtofAppealsbutfiledinthechancerycourtonSeptember16,1998.ThereisnocertificationbytheClerkandMasterandthiscourtsdocketdoesnotindicatethatthefilingwaseverforwardedtothiscourt.Wedofindinthisrecord,however,amotiontoconsolidatethetworecordsandanorderreservingjudgmentonthatmotionbecausethetimeforfilingaRule11applicationtotheSupremeCourthadnotexpired.Theorderfurtherstatesthatthereservationwaswithoutprejudicetotherightofthepartiestoobtainaduplicaterecordfromthetrialcourtforfilinginthisappeal.ApparentlythefilinginthechancerycourtonSeptember16,1998wasaneffortonthepartofthepartiestotakeadvantageofthiscourtssuggestion,buttherecordfromthedCdecehancerybCbcccourtwasneverfiledinthiscourt.̛̜  0 Allofthatbeingsaid,wehaveexaminedtherecordfurnishedwiththe :4:9 PetitiontoRehearanditconfirmsourinitialconclusionthatthebreachofabailmentcontractwasnotpartoftheprioraction.Theappelleesassertthatresjudicataappliestoallissuesthatcouldhavebeenraisedintheformeraction,butthetruck t  wasstillinthepossessionofthedefendantswhentheagreedorderwasenteredterminatingthataction.Theallegedbreachofthebailmentcontractdidnotoccuruntiltheformeractionhadbeenterminated.Wedonotseehowtheappelleescanassertthattheissuesinvolvingabreachofthebailmentrelationshipcouldhavebeenraised   inthataction.  0 TheappellantdidseekRule60relieffromthefinaljudgmentintheformercasesothathecouldassertaclaimessentiallythesameastheoneraisedinthiscase.Thechancellordeniedthatreliefonthegroundoftheappellantslaches,andthatjudgmentwasaffirmedbythiscourt.ButaswepointedoutintheoriginalopinionthatjudgmentwasontheRule60motion,notonthemeritsofthebailmentclaim.Therefore,fitisorderedthatfthePetitiontoReheargbeghishoverruled.iItissoordered.i  0      8 _______________________________________  0      8 BENH.CANTRELL,PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S.  0      8 ______________________________________  0      8 WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE  0      8 ______________________________________  0      8 WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE  0