ÿWPC` 4# èUNó %A 0cGU<ªw@æ4&: 0§Ið 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` 0dÕ 0@9 D3y B¬ 0DÉ U> B)K DCt AM· U* AQ. Æ 0DE 0D‰ D/Í Bü ^bwU6Ùv~vÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(;1˜$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XcXXXÔ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman IEJKLUMUNîOÓ€PÓ€\a§aö"N 0Œ3|xa(W(3P5$¤¤Ý ƒ1˜!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Xd XXXÔÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd* &Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd TÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òJulyÏ31,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó XÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€McLemore€died€on€May€22,€1996.€€The€executrix€of€his€estate,€BillieÏFrances€McLemore,€who€is€also€his€widow,€revived€the€action€in€her€name.Ì< Œ 9p`(Courier NewPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€œXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà à€€€€______________________________________________ÌÌò òBILLIE€FRANCES€MCLEMORE,ÌEXECUTRIX€OF€THE€ESTATEÌOF€WILLIAM€RALPH€MCLEMORE,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiff„Appellee,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02A01„9702„CH„00030ÌÙ€*ÙßR€'/&A1-j|jöü` à. `€€@ÿRßVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àGibson€Chancery€No.€7689ÌÌò òJ.€W.€POWELL,€ÌÌà àó óDefendant„Appellant,ò òÌÌRAYMOND€NELSON,€ó óÌÌà àDefendant.Ì____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€GIBSON€COUNTY€CHANCERY€COURTÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€GEORGE€R.€ELLIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌà@ àWilliam€F.€Kendall,€III;€Gregory€A.€PetrinjakÌà@ àWaldrop€&€Hall,€P.A.,€of€JacksonÌà@ àFor€AppelleeÌÌà@ àThomas€E.€Harwood€of€TrentonÌà@ àFor€AppellantÌÌÌà@ àò òòòREVERSED€AND€DISMISSEDó óÌÌà@ àóóOpinion€filed:€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌÌò òÌCONCUR:ÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óÌÌÌ›Ñ H ÑÑ H ÑÑ7€œXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓÓà àThis€is€a€suit€to€collect€a€debt€owing€from€a€purchase€of€cattle.€ÏDefendant,€J.€W.€Powell€(Powell),€appeals€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€findingÏthat€there€was€an€agency€relationship€between€Powell€and€his€co„defendant,ÏRaymond€Nelson€(Nelson),€and€awarding€the€plaintiff,€Ralph€McLemoreÏ(McLemore),€a€judgment€against€Powell€in€the€amount€of€$9,867.98.× ƒ0 ××  ×Ìà àIn€November€1987,€McLemore€sold€Nelson€sixty„seven€head€of€cattle€atÏ$350.00€a€head.€€Nelson€then€sold€forty„five€head€of€the€cattle€at€a€cattleÏauction€in€McLemoreððs€name,€and€the€checks€in€payment€for€the€cattle€wereÏpayable€to€McLemore.€€McLemore€endorsed€some€of€the€checks€that€heÏreceived€from€the€sale€of€the€cattle€over€to€Nelson.€€In€return,€Nelson€gaveÏMcLemore€a€signed,€blank€note.€€McLemore€later€filled€in€the€note€for€theÍamount€of€$27,500.00€and€contends€that€Nelson€assured€him€that€Powell,€asÏNelsonððs€principal,€would€make€payment€within€ninety€days.€€Powell€andÏMcLemore€had€entered€into€six€transactions€before€this€date€that€wereÏnegotiated€by€Nelson€on€Powellððs€behalf.€€Neither€Nelson€nor€Powell€paidÏMcLemore€for€the€cattle€in€this€particular€transaction.€€Ìà àOn€December€30,€1988,€McLemore€filed€a€complaint€against€Nelson€andÏPowell€alleging,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€Nelson€negotiated€the€sale€of€sixty„seven€head€ofÏcattle€with€McLemore€and€that€Nelson€was€acting€as€Powellððs€agent€orÏrepresentative€in€the€sale.€€In€the€complaint,€McLemore€avers€that€NelsonÏexecuted€a€promissory€note€in€the€amount€of€$27,500.00€on€behalf€of€Powell,Ïthat€Powell€admitted€to€McLemore€that€Nelson€was€his€agent€or€representativeÏin€the€sale€of€the€cattle,€and€that€Powell€obtained€ownership€of€the€cattleÏpursuant€to€the€transaction.€€McLemore€further€avers€that€Powell€paidÏ$4,000.00€of€the€$27,500.00,€but€that€McLemore€has€not€received€theÏremaining€$23,500.00€due€under€the€promissory€note.€€In€Count€I€of€theÏcomplaint,€McLemore€demands€payment€of€the€promissory€note€from€Powell,Ïpursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€47„2„201€òòet€seq.óó,€for€the€transaction€entered€into€by€NelsonÏon€Powellððs€behalf,€plus€attorneyððs€fees€and€interest.€€In€Count€II€of€theÏcomplaint,€McLemore€avers€that€Nelson€and€Powell€violated€certain€maxims€ofÏequity€and€demands€judgment€in€the€amount€of€$23,500.00,€plus€attorneyððs€feesÏand€interest.€Ìà àOn€February€1,€1989,€Powell€filed€an€answer€admitting€that€NelsonÏexecuted€a€promissory€note€for€the€purchase€of€the€cattle€from€McLemore,€butÏdenying€all€of€the€material€allegations€in€the€complaint,€including€that€NelsonÏwas€acting€as€his€agent€or€representative€in€the€sale.€€Also€on€February€1,€1989,ÏPowell€filed€a€cross„claim€against€Nelson€averring€that€Nelson€would€be€liable€toÏPowell€should€McLemore€obtain€a€judgment€against€Powell.€€On€August€8,€1989,ÏNelson€filed€an€answer€in€which€he€admitted€that€he€signed€a€blank€note€afterÏbuying€some€cattle€from€McLemore€and€that€the€note€was€part€of€the€proceedsÏfor€the€payment€of€cattle€that€he€bought€from€McLemore.€€Nelson€alleges,Ïhowever,€that€McLemore€received€most€of€the€proceeds€for€the€cattle€and€thatÏNelson€signed€the€blank€note€for€the€small€balance€remaining€after€the€sale€andÏpayment.€€On€October€1,€1991,€Powell€filed€an€amended€answer€raising€theÏStatute€of€Frauds€in€T.C.A.€ðð€47„2„201€and€ðð€29„2„101€and€a€lack€ofÏconsideration€as€additional€defenses.€€Also€on€October€1,€1991,€Powell€filed€aÏmotion€for€summary€judgment.€€After€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€entered€an€orderÏon€January€25,€1993€granting€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€Powell€andÏdismissing€the€action€as€to€Nelson.€€Ìà àMcLemore€appealed€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€to€this€Court,€and€inÏan€opinion€dated€February€24,€1994,€this€Court€held€that€there€was€a€materialÏfact€in€dispute€as€to€the€existence€of€an€agency€relationship€between€Powell€andÏNelson€at€the€time€of€the€transaction.€€ò òòòSee€McLemore€v.€Powelló óóó,€No.€02A01„9302„CH„00043,€1994€WL€53643,€at€*4€(Tenn.€App.€Feb.€24,€1994).€€ThisÏCourt€further€held€that€T.C.A.€ðð€29„2„101€was€inapplicable,€but€that€if€the€proofÏestablished€an€agency€relationship,€McLemoreððs€claim€ð ðmay€indeed€fall€withinÏthe€exceptions€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð€47„2„201.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€*4„5.€€Accordingly,€thisÏCourt€reversed€the€grant€of€summary€of€judgment€and€remanded€the€case€forÏtrial.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€*5.Ìà àOn€November€17,€1995,€Nelson€filed€a€motion€to€amend€his€answer€toÏadd€that€McLemoreððs€right€of€action€accrued€on€November€4,€1987.€€In€theÏproposed€amendment,€Nelson€asserted€that€McLemore€had€not€amended€hisÏcomplaint€to€assert€a€right€of€action€for€breach€of€contract€and€that€such€aÏclaim€was€now€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€The€trial€court€entered€anÏorder€granting€this€motion€on€January€11,€1996.Ìà àAfter€a€bench€trial,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€on€August€29,€1996Ïincorporating€the€following€findings€by€reference.€€The€trial€court€found€thatÏNelson€purchased€sixty„seven€head€of€cattle€from€McLemore€at€$350.00€perÏhead€for€a€total€of€$23,450.00.€€The€trial€court€further€found€that€Nelson€tookÏapproximately€forty„five€head€of€cattle€and€sold€them€at€an€auction,€butÏinstructed€the€sale€barn€to€issue€the€checks€for€the€proceeds€in€McLemoreððsÏname.€€The€trial€court€then€found€that€McLemore€endorsed€$13,582.02€inÏchecks€over€to€Nelson€at€his€request,€that€Nelson€promised€to€pay€McLemoreÏback€in€sixty€to€ninety€days,€and€that€Nelson€signed€a€blank€document€toÍevidence€the€debt.€€McLemore€later€filled€in€the€amount€portion€of€theÏdocument€in€the€amount€of€$27,500.00,€which€included€$4,000.00€that€is€notÏpart€of€this€suit.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Nelson€was€acting€as€Powellððs€agentÏin€the€original€transaction€and€that€the€document€in€question€fell€within€anÏexception€to€the€Statute€of€Frauds.€€The€trial€court€also€found€that€Nelson€wasÏnot€acting€as€Powellððs€agent€when€McLemore€endorsed€the€checks€for€the€sale€ofÏthe€cattle€over€to€Nelson€and€that€the€amount€owing€as€a€result€of€thisÏtransaction,€which€was€in€effect€a€loan€from€McLemore€to€Nelson,€was€NelsonððsÏindividual€debt.€€Finally,€the€trial€court€awarded€McLemore€a€judgment€againstÏPowell€in€the€amount€of€$9,986.98€for€the€difference€between€the€note€and€theÏamount€owing€under€the€original€cattle€purchase€agreement.€Ìà àPowell€appeals€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€presents€six€issues€forÏreview:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€Whether€the€evidence€supports€the€verdict€whenÏthe€depositions€of€the€decedent,€McLemore,€and€theÏdefendant,€Powell,€were€not€read€into€the€record,€butÏwere€filed€as€exhibits€in€violation€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ï32.01.€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€failed€toÏdismiss€the€suit€upon€motion€of€the€defendant,ÏPowell,€because€the€complaint€reflected€on€its€faceÏthat€McLemore€was€suing€on€a€note,€but€McLemoreÏand€his€counsel€admitted€that€the€note€was€merely€aÏrecord€of€the€transaction€and€argued€that€McLemoreÏwas€entitled€to€a€judgment€under€the€equitable€countsÏof€the€complaint.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€Whether€the€defendant€Nelson€was€an€agent€ofÏPowell€in€the€transaction€out€of€which€this€lawsuitÏarose.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€Whether€the€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€47„3„401€areÏapplicable€to€the€note€in€this€case.€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€Whether€the€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€47„3„403€areÏapplicable€to€the€note€in€this€case.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(6)€Whether€the€defendant€Powell€is€relieved€ofÏliability€under€the€Statute€of€Frauds€in€T.C.A.€ðð€47„2„201.ÌÌÓÓà àSince€this€case€was€tried€by€the€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€we€reviewÏthe€case€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€theÏfindings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€Unless€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€findings,€we€must€affirm,€absent€error€of€law.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).Ìà àIn€his€first€issue,€Powell€contends€that€the€evidence€does€not€support€the€Ïjudgment€in€this€case.€€He€points€out€that€the€trial€court€must€have€relied€on€ÏMcLemore€and€Powellððs€depositions,€which€were€admitted€as€exhibits€at€trial,€inÏmaking€its€decision€because€the€trial€court€could€not€have€found€that€there€wasÏan€agency€relationship€otherwise.€€Powell€argues€that€the€depositions€were€notÏevidence€that€the€trial€court€could€properly€consider€because€the€depositionsÏwere€improperly€admitted€as€exhibits.€€In€support€of€his€argument,€Powell€reliesÏon€ò òòòNelms€v.€Tennessee€Farmers€Mutual€Insurance€Co.ó óóó,€613€S.W.2d€481€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1978),€and€ò òòòDoochin€v.€United€States€Fidelity€&€Guaranty€Co.ó óóó,€854€S.W.2dÏ109€(Tenn.€App.€1993),€for€the€proposition€that€depositions€may€not€beÍadmitted€as€exhibits€at€trial.€€Ìà àThe€ò òòòTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€óóó óprovide€the€following€with€respectÏto€the€use€of€depositions€in€court€proceedings:Ìò òÓÓà8 àà8 à32.01.€€Use€of€Depositions.€ð"ðó ó€At€the€trial€or€uponÏthe€hearing€of€a€motion€or€an€interlocutoryÏproceeding,€any€part€or€all€of€a€deposition,€so€far€asÏadmissible€under€the€rules€of€evidence€applied€asÏthough€the€witness€were€then€present€and€testifying,Ïmay€be€used€against€any€party€who€was€present€orÏrepresented€at€the€taking€of€the€deposition€or€whoÏhad€reasonable€notice€thereof,€in€accordance€with€anyÏof€the€following€provisions:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 à(1)€Any€deposition€may€be€used€by€anyÏparty€for€the€purpose€of€contradicting€orÏimpeaching€the€testimony€of€deponent€asÏa€witness.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 à(2)€The€deposition€of€a€party€or€ofÏanyone€who€at€the€time€of€taking€theÏdeposition€was€an€officer,€director,€orÏmanaging€agent,€or€a€person€designatedÏunder€Rule€30.02(6)€or€31.01€to€testifyÏon€behalf€of€a€public€or€privateÏcorporation,€partnership€or€association,Ïgovernmental€agency€or€individualÏproprietorship€which€is€a€party€may€beÏused€by€an€adverse€party€for€any€purpose.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 à(3)€The€deposition€of€a€witness,€whetherÏor€not€a€party,€may€be€used€by€any€partyÏfor€any€purpose€if€the€court€finds:€(A)Ïthat€the€witness€is€dead;€or€(B)€that€theÏwitness€is€at€a€greater€distance€than€100Ïmiles€from€the€place€of€trial€or€hearing€orÏis€out€of€the€state,€unless€it€appears€thatÏthe€absence€of€the€witness€was€procuredÏby€the€party€offering€the€deposition;€orÍ(C)€that€the€witness€is€unable€to€attendÏor€testify€because€of€age,€illness,Ïinfirmity,€or€imprisonment;€or€(D)€thatÏthe€party€offering€the€deposition€hasÏbeen€unable€to€procure€the€attendance€ofÏthe€witness€by€subpoena€or€the€witness€isÏexempt€from€subpoena€to€trial€underÏT.C.A.€ðð€24„9„101;€or€(E)€uponÏapplication€and€notice,€that€suchÏexceptional€circumstances€exist€as€toÏmake€it€desirable,€in€the€interest€ofÏjustice€and€with€due€regard€to€theÏimportance€of€presenting€the€testimonyÏof€witnesses€orally€in€open€court,€to€allowÏthe€deposition€to€be€used.€ÏNotwithstanding€the€foregoingÏprovisions,€depositions€of€experts€takenÏpursuant€to€the€provisions€of€RuleÏ26.02(4)€may€not€be€used€at€the€trialÏexcept€to€impeach€in€accordance€withÏthe€provisions€of€Rule€32.01(1).ÌÓÓÓÓÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€32.01(1)„(3).Ìà àThe€cases€on€which€Powell€relies€are€distinguishable€from€this€case.€ÏThose€cases€involved€jury€trials,€whereas€this€case€involved€a€bench€trial.€€AsÏstated€in€ò òòòCampbell€County€Board€of€Education€v.€Brownlee„Kesterson,€Inc.ó óóó,€677ÏS.W.2d€457€(Tenn.€App.€1984),€ð ðIf€the€deposition€is€admissible€it€may€be€readÏto€the€trier€of€facts€by€counsel€or€may€simply€be€handed€to€the€Judge€for€hisÏreading€if€the€Judge€happens€to€be€the€trier€of€facts.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€463„64.€€Obviously,Ïin€a€jury€case€it€would€not€be€feasible€to€allow€each€juror€to€read€theÏdepositions.€€Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€use€of€McLemoreððs€deposition€is€clearly€authorized€byÍTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€32.01€(3)(A)€because€McLemore€died€before€the€trial€of€thisÏcause.€€Additionally,€the€use€of€Powellððs€deposition€was€proper€as€well€becauseÏTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€32.01(2)€provides€that€the€deposition€of€an€adverse€party€mayÏbe€used€for€any€purpose.€€Ìà àPowell€contends€that€the€use€of€his€deposition€was€improper€because€heÏwas€present€at€the€trial€and€able€to€testify.€€In€ò òòòBall€v.€Overton€Square,€Inc.ó óóó,€731ÏS.W.2d€536€(Tenn.€App.€1987),€the€plaintiffððs€attorney€read€the€deposition€ofÏthe€defendant€companyððs€president€into€the€record€at€a€jury€trial.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€539.€ÏOn€appeal,€the€defendant€company€challenged€the€use€of€the€deposition€becauseÏits€president€was€present€during€the€reading€of€the€deposition€and€testifying€atÏthe€trial.€€ò òòòId.€€óóó óThis€Court€noted€that€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€32.01€ð ðclearly€providesÏthat€a€party€may€use€the€deposition€of€an€adverse€party€for€any€purpose.ðð€€ò òòòId.€Ïóóó óConsequently,€the€Court€held€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€allowing€theÏdeposition€to€be€read€into€the€record,€even€though€the€companyððs€president€wasÏpresent€and€testifying€at€the€trial.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€€Ìà à€Although€these€depositions€were€admitted€as€exhibits€at€trial€and€notÏsimply€filed€as€part€of€the€record,€this€is€merely€form€over€substance€and€will€beÏconsidered€as€filed€and€part€of€the€record.€€It€is€clear€that€these€depositionsÏwere€evidence€that€could€be€considered€by€the€trial€court,€and€the€trial€courtÏwas€well€within€its€province€as€the€trier€of€fact€to€consider€them€in€this€manner.€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àWe€next€address€Powellððs€second€issue.€€In€his€second€issue,€PowellÏcontends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€dismiss€the€suit.€€Powell€assertsÏthat€McLemoreððs€complaint€reflected€on€its€face€that€he€was€suing€on€a€note,Ïbut€that€McLemore€and€his€counsel€both€admitted€that€the€document€at€issueÏwas€never€intended€to€be€a€note,€but€merely€a€record€of€the€transaction.€€PowellÏargues€that,€despite€McLemoreððs€assertions€to€the€contrary,€McLemore€is€notÏentitled€to€a€judgment€under€the€equitable€counts€of€the€complaint€under€theÏtheory€that€the€note€is€merely€a€record€of€the€transaction.€Ìà àMcLemore,€on€the€other€hand,€contends€that€the€trial€court€found€thatÏPowell€is€liable€under€the€oral€contract€to€purchase€cattle€that€Nelson€enteredÏinto€on€his€behalf.€€McLemore€argues€that€Powellððs€liability€arises€out€of€hisÏagreement€to€a€contract,€and€not€out€of€the€note,€and€that€this€contract€isÏcontemplated€under€the€equitable€counts€of€the€complaint.Ìà àThe€trial€court€in€this€case€found€that€Nelson€was€acting€as€Powellððs€agentÏwhen€he€purchased€cattle€from€McLemore€in€November€1987,€and€the€trialÏcourt€rendered€a€judgment€against€Powell€for€the€amount€owing€under€thisÏalleged€contract.€€The€complaint€in€this€case€merely€demands€payment€of€theÏpromissory€note€and€a€judgment€under€the€principles€of€equity.€€The€complaintÏdoes€not€seek€to€recover€for€a€breach€of€contract,€nor€has€McLemore€amendedÏhis€complaint€to€bring€such€a€cause€of€action.€€Moreover,€we€fail€to€see€that€aÏcause€of€action€for€breach€of€contract€is€encompassed€within€the€second€countÍof€the€complaint.Ìà àBecause€the€case€went€to€trial€despite€the€fact€that€pleadings€did€notÏencompass€a€cause€of€action€for€breach€of€contract,€we€must€determine€whetherÏthis€issue€was€tried€by€the€implied€consent€of€the€parties€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.Ï15.02.€€The€Rule€reads€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò ò15.02.€€Amendments€to€Conform€to€the€Evidence.Ïð"ðó ó€€When€issues€not€raised€by€the€pleadings€are€triedÏby€express€or€implied€consent€of€the€parties,€they€shallÏbe€treated€in€all€respects€as€if€they€had€been€raised€inÏthe€pleadings.€€Such€amendment€of€the€pleadings€asÏmay€be€necessary€to€cause€them€to€conform€to€theÏevidence€and€to€raise€these€issues€may€be€made€uponÏmotion€of€any€party€at€any€time,€even€after€judgment;Ïbut€failure€so€to€amend€does€not€affect€the€result€ofÏthe€trial€of€these€issues.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.02.€€Implied€œconsent›€hinges€on€the€issues€that€were€actuallyÏlitigated€by€the€parties,€and€the€failure€to€amend€or€to€request€to€amend€is€notÏdispositive.€€ò òòòZack€Cheek€Builders,€Inc.€v.€McLeodó óóó,€597€S.W.2d€888,€890€(Tenn.Ï1980).€€à à€Ìà àGenerally€speaking,€trial€by€implied€consent€will€be€found€when€the€partyÏopposed€to€the€amendment€knew€or€reasonably€should€have€known€of€theÏevidence€relating€to€the€new€issue,€did€not€object€to€this€evidence,€and€was€notÏprejudiced€thereby.€€€òòò òId.€€ó óóóAs€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€stated€in€ò òòòZack€CheekÏBuilders,€Inc.€v.€McLeodó óóó:ÌÓÓà8 àð ðImplied€consent€.€.€.€€is€much€more€difficult€to€establish€(thanÏexpress€consent)€and€seems€to€depend€on€whether€the€partiesÍrecognized€that€an€issue€not€presented€by€the€pleadings€entered€theÏcase€at€trial.€€A€party€who€knowingly€acquiesces€in€theÏintroduction€of€evidence€relating€to€issues€that€are€beyond€theÏpleadings€is€in€no€position€to€contest€a€motion€to€conform.€€Thus,Ïconsent€generally€is€found€when€evidence€is€introduced€withoutÏobjection,€or€when€the€party€opposing€the€motion€to€amendÏhimself€produced€evidence€bearing€on€the€new€issue.ðð€€€ÌÌò òòòÓÓId.€ó óóó(quoting€6€Wright€&€Miller,€òòò òFederal€Practice€and€Procedureó óóó€ðð€1493,€atÏ462„63€(1971)).€€Trial€by€implied€consent€is€not€shown€by€the€presentation€ofÏevidence€that€is€relevant€to€an€unestablished€issue€when€that€evidence€is€alsoÏrelevant€to€the€established€issue.€€ò òòòHiller€v.€Haileyó óóó,€915€S.W.2d€800,€805€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1995)€(citations€omitted).à àÌà àIn€this€case,€Powell€made€an€oral€motion€to€dismiss€the€suit€on€theÏground€that€McLemore€was€not€seeking€recovery€on€the€note,€but€on€theÏoriginal€contract,€and€that€this€was€not€encompassed€within€his€pleadings.€€InÏfact,€Powell€repeatedly€pointed€out€to€the€trial€court€that€McLemore€and€hisÏcounsel€both€admitted€that€the€note€was€not€a€note,€but€merely€a€record€of€theÏtransaction.€€The€trial€court€reserved€its€ruling€on€Powellððs€motion,€however,€theÏtrial€court€never€ruled€on€the€motion€and€eventually€rendered€a€verdict€in€thisÏcase€without€having€done€so.€€Nonetheless,€Powell€made€known€his€objection€toÏthe€trial€of€this€issue.Ìà àAdditionally,€the€evidence€introduced€at€trial€on€the€contract€for€theÏpurchase€of€cattle€did€not€fall€outside€the€scope€of€the€issues€raised€by€theÏpleadings€so€as€to€constitute€implied€consent€to€the€trial€of€a€separate€claim€forÍbreach€of€contract.€€The€surrounding€circumstances,€including€the€evidence€asÏto€whether€Nelson€was€acting€as€Powellððs€agent€when€he€entered€into€the€allegedÏcontract,€were€relevant€to€the€issue€of€whether€Nelson€was€acting€as€PowellððsÏagent€when€he€executed€the€promissory€note.€€Because€the€evidence€concerningÏthe€contract€was€relevant€to€the€claim€on€the€promissory€note,€it€cannot€be€saidÏthat€a€separate€breach€of€contract€claim€was€tried€by€the€implied€consent€of€theÏparties.Ìà àUnder€the€principles€above,€we€cannot€say€that€the€issue€of€the€breach€ofÏcontract€was€tried€by€the€implied€consent€of€the€parties.€€The€trial€court€erredÏin€failing€to€dismiss€the€suit€and€in€rendering€a€judgment€in€favor€of€McLemoreÏbecause€a€cause€of€action€for€a€breach€of€contract€was€neither€contained€in€theÏcomplaint€nor€tried€by€the€express€or€implied€consent€of€the€parties.€€All€otherÏissues€are€pretermitted.Ìà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed,€and€the€case€isÏdismissed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€the€appellee.€€€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌALAN€E.€œHIGHERS,›€JUDGEó óÌÌ____________________________________Ìò òDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óœÔ€1ÔÔ€1Ô