ÿWPC  …# VUFa %§ 0@­4í w@ P 0„X 0DÜ 0J 0Tj 0^¾ 0h 0r„ 0|ö 0†r 0ø 1uˆ U,ý 0d)U,U6¹ BïB) DC5 AMx D3ÅU*øD" 0@fm¦v~vÓ‘ AOdƳ 0Dy D/½ Bì˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀäÌÀÀÌÀä0 <¾½Q 9Z ‹.Courier New RegularX(ù$¡¡Ó  ÓÓ  Ó©U!x¡Ó 3|xe QRSDTUDVDWXYZÓ€(4(3DX$¤¤Ý ƒù!ÝÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New d% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ&&&&'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial :Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òAugust€21,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò cÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý›òòMr.€Thompson€died€while€this€appeal€was€pending.€€Mr.€James€R.€Paris,ÏBankruptcy€Trustee€œin€òòIn›€re:€Paul€Joseph€Thompsonóó,€was€substituted€as€appel…lee.œóóÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€$$X„d&ÓÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ ¸ ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€9¶XXdÖXXdÖ7ÑÙ€€ÙßL€),(;+'h|` ¤ `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌPAUL€THOMPSON,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHAMILTON€CHANCERYÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9602„CH„00058Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€œHOWELL›€N.€PEOPLESÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àCHANCELLORÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌœCRESWELL›€INDUSTRIAL€SUPPLY,€€€€€)à àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌINC.,€and€CHEROKEE€SUPPLY€CO.,€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellants€€)ÌÌÌÌÌJERRY€H.€SUMMERS€and€JIMMY€F.€ROGERS,€JR.,€Summers,€œMcCrea›€&ÏWyatt,€P.C.,€Chattanooga,€for€appellants.ÌÌÌJOHN€P.€œKONVALINKA›€and€œMATHEW›€D.€œBROWNFIELD›,€Grant,€œKonvalinka›€&ÏHarrison,€P.C.,€Chattanooga,€for€appellee.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌà€ àMcMurray,€J.ÌÌÌà àThis€is€an€appeal€from€the€judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€ofÏHamilton€County€concerning€commissions€allegedly€due€under€twoÏoral€employment€contracts.€€The€œplaintiff/Appellee,›€Paul€Thompson,Ïfiled€suit€against€Creswell€Industrial€Supply,€Inc.,€and€CherokeeÏSupply,€Inc.,€claiming€that€they€were€obligated€to€pay€him€35Ïpercent€of€the€gross€sales€he€generated€for€each€company€duringÏparts€of€œ1991.× ƒ. ××  ×€€The›€œdefendants›€claimed€that€the€œplaintiff›€hadÏagreed€to€a€revision€of€his€employment€contracts€concerning€com…missions.€€The€œChancellor›€ruled€for€the€œplaintiff,›€and€awardedÏdamages€in€the€amount€of€$1,118.75€against€Creswell€IndustrialÍSupply,€Inc.,€and€$18,242.06€against€Cherokee€Supply,€Inc.€€ThisÏappeal€resulted.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àThe€œplaintiff›€began€working€for€Creswell€Industrial€Supply€inÏ1978€as€a€sales€agent/representative.€€He€worked€under€an€oralÏagreement€whereby€he€would€receive€a€35€percent€commission€onÏgross€profits€from€his€sales,€regardless€of€the€amount€of€profit…ability€to€the€company.€€The€œplaintiff›€was€hired€by€the€company'sÏpresident,€Robert€Creswell.€€The€œplaintiff›€never€entered€into€aÏwritten€employment€agreement,€even€though€other€sales€agents€hadÏdone€so.€€In€1988,€Creswell€formed€Cherokee€Supply,€Inc.€€TheÏmajority€stockholder€in€the€new€company€was€Joe€Garren.€€TheÏcompany€was€set€up€as€a€minority„owned€business€(Garren€is€Chero…kee€Indian)€in€order€to€compete€for€TVA€contracts.€€In€addition€toÏhis€responsibilities€to€Creswell,€the€œplaintiff›€worked€as€a€salesÏagent/representative€for€Cherokee€as€well.€€He€had€a€similar€oralÏagreement€with€Cherokee€to€work€for€35€percent€of€gross€profitsÏfrom€his€sales,€regardless€of€their€profitability.ÌÌà àIn€1991,€the€œdefendants›€in€an€attempt€to€reverse€decliningÏprofits€instituted€a€new€compensation€structure€for€their€salesÏagents/representatives.€€In€April,€1991,€Cherokee€introduced€aÏsliding€scale€of€commission€rates€for€its€agents,€providing€for€aÏmaximum€sales€commission€of€35€percent.€€Creswell€instituted€a€newÏcommission€scale€in€September€of€1991€which€provided€for€salesÏincentives€which,€it€claimed,€could€produce€commissions€greaterÏthan€35€percent.€€The€œplaintiff,›€however,€presented€testimony€fromÏanother€sales€agent/representative€that€the€œplaintiff›€was€in€factÏthe€only€sales€agent€who€was€subject€to€the€changes.ÌÌà àThe€œplaintiff›€claims€that€he€never€agreed€to€the€new€scalesÏat€either€company,€and€voiced€numerous€complaints€about€the€chang…es€in€the€commission€calculations.€€The€œdefendants›€submitted€theÏtestimony€of€four€witnesses€that€the€œplaintiff›€had€never€com…plained€about€the€changes.€€The€œChancellor›€however€rejected€thatÏtestimony,€and€found€that€the€œplaintiff›€had€not€accepted€a€modifi…cation€of€his€contracts€as€contended€by€the€œdefendants.›ÌÌà àDefendants€œpresent›€three€issues€for€appeal:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà0 àà à1.à àWhether€an€employee„at„will€in€Tennessee€workingÏsolely€on€a€commission€basis€pursuant€to€an€oralÏemployment€contract,€who€is€given€notice€by€hisÏemployer€prior€to€the€implementation€of€a€newÏcommission€scale,€and€who€continues€to€work€for€theÏemployer€after€the€new€scale€is€implemented,€canÏstill€bind€his€employer€to€the€original€commissionÏrate€in€the€event€he€receives€less€money€under€theÏnew€scale€by€merely€"complaining"€several€times€toÏhis€employer€about€such€change?ÌÌà8 àà0 àà à2.à àWhether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÏtrial€court's€finding€that€the€appellee€did€notÏagree€to€the€changes€in€how€the€appellants€calcu…lated€the€appelleeððs€commissions?ÌÌà8 àà0 àà à3.à àWhether€the€trial€court's€award€of€damages€to€theÏappellee€under€the€original€contracts€were€[sic]Ïexcessive€since€the€evidence€revealed€the€failureÏof€the€appellee€to€fully€perform€all€of€the€appel…lee's€duties?ÌÌÌÌÓÓœà àOur€standard€of€review€is€is€controlled€by€Rule€13(d),€Ten…nessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€"Unless€otherwise€requiredÏby€statute,€review€of€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€in€civilÏactions€shall€be€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Íaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€finding,Ïunless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise."ÌÌ›à àAs€to€the€first€issue,€the€œdefendants›€argue€that€the€œChancel…lor›€improperly€relied€upon€our€decision€in€òòBalderacchi€v.€Ruthóó,Ï256€S.W.2d€390€œ(Tenn.€App.›€1952),€where€we€held€that€there€was€noÏmodification€of€an€employment€contract€when€the€employer€attemptedÏto€reduce€the€employee's€compensation€against€the€employee's€will.€ÏDefendants€argue€that€the€instant€case€is€distinguishable€fromÏòòBalderacchióó€in€that:€(1)€òòBalderacchióó€dealt€with€an€employer€whoÏattempted€to€alter€a€written€contract;€(2)€the€plaintiff€inÏòòBalderacchióó€refused€to€accept€the€reduction€in€salary;€€(3)€theÏplaintiff€in€òòBalderacchióó€constantly€told€his€employer€he€was€notÏaccepting€the€new€terms;€(4)€the€plaintiff€in€òòBalderacchióó€gave€hisÏemployer€prompt€notification€of€his€rejection€of€the€new€terms;Ïand€(5)€there€was€no€contention€by€the€employer€in€òòBalderacchióóÏthat€the€old€contract€had€been€terminated.€€We€do€not€find€any€ofÏthese€issues€sufficiently€distinguishable€from€the€facts€before€usÍto€require€a€rejection€of€the€œChancellor's›€reliance€on€òòBalderacchióó.ÌÌà àWe€find€the€distinction€between€the€written€contract€inÏòòBalderacchióó€and€the€oral€one€in€the€instant€case€to€œbe€a›€distinc…tion€without€a€difference.€€Oral€contracts€in€Tennessee€are€validÏand€binding€so€long€as€the€terms€are€definite€and€certain.€€òòSeeóóÏòòSimmons€v.€Fosteróó,€622€S.W.2d€838€(Tenn.App.€1981).€€We€findÏœnothing€in›€the€òòBalderacchióó€opinion€œthat€demonstrates›€that€theÏcontract€was€written€as€opposed€to€oral€was€of€any€consequence.€ÏWe€do€find€it€significant,€however,€that€both€contracts€were€forÏindefinite€terms,€yet€contained€a€definite€measure€of€compensa…tion.€ÌÌà àThe€other€arguments€the€œdefendants›€set€forth€as€to€why€theÏœChancellor›€was€in€error€in€relying€on€òòBalderacchióó€regard€theÏmanner€in€which€the€œplaintiff›€allegedly€refused€to€accept€the€newÏcompensation€œterms.€›€œDefendants›€insist€that€the€complaints€plain…tiff€claims€to€have€made€were€not€enough€to€equal€the€rejection€ofÏthe€new€contract€by€the€plaintiff€in€òòBalderacchióó.€€As€we€stated€inÍòòBalderacchióó,€the€burden€of€showing€the€modification€by€mutualÏassent€or€of€establishing€facts€either€constituting€an€accord€orÏforming€the€basis€of€an€estoppel€falls€upon€the€œdefendants.›€ÏòòBalderacchióó€at€391„92.€€Defendants€have€failed€to€meet€that€bur…den.€€Defendants€œsubmitted€the›€testimony€at€trial€of€four€witness…es€that€the€œplaintiff›€did€not€reject€the€proposed€revisions€of€hisÏcontracts.€€The€œChancellor›€found€that€the€witnesses€who€testifiedÏfor€the€œdefendants›€regarding€the€œplaintiffððs›€acquiescence€to€theÏnew€terms€were€not€credible.€€Indeed,€there€were€numerous€incon…sistencies€regarding€statements€the€œdefendants'›€witnesses€made.€€AÏtrial€court€œ"on›€an€issue€which€hinges€on€witness€credibility,€willÏnot€be€reversed€unless,€other€than€the€oral€testimony€of€theÏwitnesses,€there€is€found€in€the€record€clear,€convincing€evidenceÏto€the€œcontrary."›€€òòTennessee€Valley€Kaolin€Corp.€v.€Perryóó,€526ÏS.W.2d€488,€490€(Tenn.€App.€1974).€€We€find€no€such€countervailingÏevidence€in€the€record.€€We€therefore€hold€that€the€œChancellor›€wasÏcorrect€in€determining€that€the€facts€of€this€case€are€governed€byÏòòBal‚deracchióó.ÌÌà àThe€second€issue€deals€with€the€Court's€finding€that€theÏœplaintiff›€did€not€agree€to€the€changes€in€how€the€œdefendants›Ïcalculated€his€commissions.€€In€òòBalderacchióó,€we€held€that€a€reduc…tion€of€salary€followed€by€an€acceptance€under€protest€in€anÏemployment€contract€does€not€end€the€original€contract€and€createÏa€new€one€with€new€terms.€€While€œdefendants›€admit€that€an€enforce…able€contract€must€result€from€a€meeting€of€the€minds,€and€thatÏthe€meeting€of€the€minds€cannot€be€accomplished€by€the€unilateralÏaction€of€one€party,€they€claim€that€if€they€could€not€unilateral…ly€impose€the€new€commission€terms€on€the€œplaintiff›€without€hisÏagreement,€the€œplaintiff›€could€not€re„impose€the€original€contractÏterms€on€them€without€their€agreement.€€We€find€this€position€toÏbe€untenable€under€basic€principles€of€contract€law.ÌÌà àThe€œdefendants›€do€not€dispute€that€the€œplaintiff›€had€been€Ïworking€for€some€time€under€oral€contracts€whereby€he€was€toÏreceive€35€percent€of€all€sales€for€both€companies.€€Nor€do€theyÏdeny€that€they€attempted€to€introduce€a€new€compensation€schemeÏwhich€altered€the€basic€terms€of€their€agreement.€€What€theyÍapparently€œfailed›€to€comprehend€was€that€this€action€amounted€toÏan€attempted€unilateral€alteration€of€the€terms€of€the€agreement.€ÏWhile€œdefendants›€had€the€power€to€terminate€the€agreement€(whichÏthey€did€not€do),€they€did€not€have€the€power€to€alter€the€agree…ment€without€the€assent€of€the€œplaintiff,›€which,€as€we€have€ad…dressed,€was€not€given.€€As€we€held€in€òòBalderacchióó,€modificationÏof€a€compensation€agreement€in€an€existing€contract€cannot€beÏaccomplished€by€the€unilateral€actions€of€one€of€the€parties.€ÏTherefore,€the€actions€by€the€œdefendants›€in€imposing€a€new€compen…sation€agreement€were€in€œfact›€unilateral€œactions›€to€which€thereÏwas€no€mutual€assent.€€The€œdefendants'›€argument€that€the€œplaintiff›Ïcould€not€reimpose€the€original€terms€€must€consequently€fail.€ÏSince€the€œplaintiff›€never€accepted€the€new€terms,€they€never€tookÏeffect,€and€the€original€terms€remained€in€force€until€such€timeÏas€œplaintiff›€ceased€working€for€the€œdefendants.›€ÌÌà àThe€final€issue€raised€by€the€œdefendants›€œquestions›€whetherÏthe€damages€awarded€by€the€œChancellor›€were€excessive€since€theÏœplaintiff›€allegedly€failed€to€fully€perform€all€of€his€duties.€ÍDefendants€presented€evidence€showing€that€various€personal€prob…lems€of€the€œplaintiff›€œaffected›€his€sales€in€1990€and€1991,€andÏthat€he€did€not€fully€service€his€accounts€as€required.€€Defen…dants€cite€the€case€of€òòR.J.€Betterton€Management€Services,€Inc.€v.ÏWhittemoreóó,€769€S.W.2d€214€(Tenn.€App.€1988)€for€the€propositionÏthat€it€was€implicit€in€the€trial€judge's€discretion€to€determineÏif€one€party€did€or€did€not€fully€perform€his€obligations€under€aÏcontract.€€The€œdefendants›€argue€that€the€œplaintiff›€in€the€instantÏcase€did€not€fully€perform€all€of€his€obligations€under€the€con…tract,€and€should€not€have€been€awarded€the€full€amount€of€hisÏcommission€pursuant€to€the€original€contracts.€€We€find€òòBettertonóóÏto€be€distinguishable.€€òòBettertonóó€dealt€with€a€person€who€wasÏhired€to€organize€and€run€a€golf€tournament.€€Shortly€before€theÏtournament€was€scheduled€to€begin€its€cancellation€became€neces…sary.€€As€a€result,€the€plaintiff€was€unable€to€complete€the€jobÏthat€he€was€hired€to€do.€€The€œdefendants›€here€claim€that€theÏœplaintiff›€did€not€do€his€job€to€the€best€of€his€abilities€due€toÏpersonal€problems.€€We€think€a€distinction€should€be€made€betweenÏnot€performing€well€and€not€performing€at€all.€€While€the€œplain…tiff's›€work€may€have€suffered€because€of€personal€problems,€thereÏis€no€evidence€that€he€was€unable€to€complete€his€duties,€œas€wasÏthe€case›€in€òòBettertonóó.€€It€is€also€important€to€note€that€theÏœplaintiff›€was€working€on€a€commission€basis.€€Therefore,€if€he€didÏnot€perform€his€responsibilities€as€well€as€he€could€have,€hisÏlevel€of€pay€would€be€affected.€€Yet€œplaintiff›€sued€for€amountsÏdue€him€on€sales€that€he€had€completed,€not€on€sales€that€may€orÏmay€not€have€been€expected€of€him.€€We€therefore€affirm€the€œChan…cellor's›€award€of€damages€against€both€œdefendants.›ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€œcourt€is€affirmed.›€€Costs€of€appealÏare€adjudged€against€the€œdefendants›€and€this€case€is€remanded€toÏthe€trial€court€for€the€collection€thereof.ÌÌÓÓà€ àœ______________________________›Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Don€T.€McMurray,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€JudgeÌœÇÑ  ÑÑ7€[gXXd×XXd×7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌPAUL€THOMPSON,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHAMILTON€CHANCERYÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9602„CH„00058Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€HOWELL€N.€PEOPLESÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àCHANCELLORÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌCRESWELL€INDUSTRIAL€SUPPLY,€€€€€)à àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌINC.,€and€CHEROKEE€SUPPLY€CO.,€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellants€€)ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòORDERóóó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€appeal€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€from€theÏChancery€Court€of€Hamilton€County,€briefs€and€the€entire€record.ÍUpon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€is€of€opinion€that€thereÏwas€no€reversible€error€in€the€trial€court.Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€appealÏare€adjudged€against€the€defendants€and€this€case€is€remanded€toÏthe€trial€court€for€the€collection€thereof.ÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€PER€CURIAM›