ÿWPCt D‚çqÜ.u/lò˜eð".4|iÁRž!Âë_õ+tÁS¤É>DFˆ.F×̈’ù*}œ_hÇn<ºÉ|8%ËÉsú ƒq’$õiýj›¶Þ,ûy~ÄŒaéÀÝd]Æd錹ÑR=0òg5%)ö•Š6¶gÕFˆ‹¿PèBZy•–\-\³iN¥ÜQKoƒ ‹g!W:s‚-©•”‹ËÆ1D_¢ûx¡–ód@ˆûMäíëHùW åÎâX‰dîðz÷Ós{RÅe1 Þzã\©ì—&×´Ì4ïçëÒ'c&ÐVWö`þíÓíÃI'?¹…ÌM"êS#ÑãÍ£XÂùá´;V‚W¢ç´ZÏi·kJ·e΢¾¹'¥f ‚áI?á4¸Å[ÑjúÅ.Œµ&þÇØ,¤GÂ_U’-¹f2xøôï)‡ JšÎîØî}8Žô!ˆµìd–’0¨þFò‹ñcÅ-—âû‘J¨ˆ™Ës4¾>è†÷£O‘VY8ÿNz&— oEóF»LD ”,:ë%Þ±%XÁ= õ!-­«`–Z!«Ð:º6Å”â,²ÅÌ*Ð/4ÅiŠ0 ;íu¨=’¾“i8qof{LzÅ(öb %\^ b 0ˆnUFNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ *‘ Æ»ÆÆGÆ UNÓN! 0D##Eggggggggggggggggggggggggbiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 0ëqqqq B\\ 0¤y D3 D-P 0K}} ASÈÆ 0¤á 0D… A«É»–)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular9?Æ(ê:i¢Ø+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4Si,ü,,,,,ü0 Ý ƒRcí$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôŸDò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€òòTurnpike€Co.€v.€Illinoisóó,€96€U.S.€63,€24€Ô_ÔL.EdÔ_Ô.€651€(1877)(where€a€franchise€limited€to€the€construction€andÐ ° Ðmaintenance€of€one€specific€toll€road€was€not€assignable);€òòOwensboro€v.€Cumberland€Telephone€and€Telegraph€Co.óó,Ð xÈ Ð230€U.S.€58,€33€Ô_ÔS.CtÔ_Ô.€988,€57€Ô_ÔL.EdÔ_Ô.€1389€(1912)(discussing€the€common€law€ð ðmagic€wordsðð€requirement€previouslyÐ @ Ðdiscussed€as€inapplicable€under€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€66„5„101);€òòBlair€v.€Chicagoóó,€201€U.S.€400,€26€Ô_ÔS.CtÔ_Ô.€427,€50€Ô_ÔL.EdÔ_Ô.€801Ð X Ð(1906)(where€the€Illinois€legislature€had€passed€legislation€requiring€acquiescence€by€local€authorities€to€extendingÐ Ð  Ðfranchise€rights€beyond€the€original€state€grant).Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2cí$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ô»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôŸDò»»Ô d(|3¹$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ô»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¹$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ô»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ô»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼ô»»»ÔÑ8€øsXXdð»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î´÷ôÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼ô»îî´÷ #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  ÓJune€2000€SessionÐ X ÐÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔÌÌò òÔ#†¼ô»XXøsî#ÔTENNESSEE„AMERICAN€WATER€COMPANYòòóó€v.€CITY€OFÐ  P ÐCHATTANOOGA,€TENNESSEE,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XøsX»¼ôÔó óÐ  h ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ  p Ðà@@øøìàNo.€52118€€€€€€Howell€N.€Peoples,€ChancellorÐ `  ÐÌFILED€Ô_ÔAGUSTÔ_Ô€2,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ð@  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<ß` AßÐ à0  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„00415„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CVÐ ß/  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¾` AßÐ ¿ Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓThe€City€of€Chattanooga€asserted,€by€counter„claim,€that€the€franchise€rights€of€a€state„franchisedÐ ®þ Ðwater€company€had€terminated€when€the€original€stated€corporate€existence€of€ninety„nine€yearsÐ žî Ðexpired.€€The€Hamilton€County€Chancery€Court€found€that€the€water€companyððs€franchise€wasÐ ŽÞ Ðseparate€from€the€incorporation,€that€perpetuity€of€the€franchise€is€the€appropriate€interpretation€when€Ð ~Î Ðthere€exists€no€limiting€language€in€the€franchise€grant€itself,€and€that€the€water€company€had€notÐ n¾ Ðtrespassed€by€continuing€to€operate€in€Chattanooga€past€the€expiration€of€the€original€ninety„nineÐ ^® Ðyear€grant€of€corporate€existence.€€The€judgment€of€the€Chancellor€is€affirmed.Ð Nž ÐÓÓÌÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmedó óÐ n ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ô»àXøsŸ#ÔÔ‡XøsX.¼ôÔD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHouston€M.€Ô_ÔGoddardÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óóÐ î > Ðand€òòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Þ!.  Ðà  àÌRandall€L.€Nelson,€Ô_ÔFredrickÔ_Ô€L.€Hitchcock,€Larry€L.€Cash,€and€Stephen€D.€Barham,€Chattanooga,Ð ¾#" ÐTennessee,€for€the€appellant,€City€of€Chattanooga,€Tennessee.Ô#†¼ô»XXøs #ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔÐ ®$þ# ÐÌJoe€A.€Conner€and€Misty€Smith€Kelley,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Tennessee„Ð Ž&Þ!% ÐAmerican€Water€Company.Ô#†¼ô»XXøs> #ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔÐ ~'Î"& ÐÓÔÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ô»XXøs #ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔÐ ^)®$( ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼ô»XXøs‘ #ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔòòò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓBackgroundó óóóÐ >+Ž&* Ðâ âÓ ÓÐ .,~'+ý Ðà  àà ` àThe€Chancellor€set€out€a€remarkably€detailed€factual€and€procedural€background€ofÐ ° Ðâ âthe€events€leading€to€Trial€of€this€case€on€pages€two€through€thirteen€of€the€Memorandum€OpinionÐ  ð Ðand€Order€on€appeal.€€We€adopt€and€attach€as€an€addendum€pages€two€through€thirteen€of€the€TrialÐ à ÐCourtððs€Memorandum€Opinion€and€Order€as€part€of€the€background€section€of€our€Opinion.€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àA€review€of€the€background€reveals€that€the€Tennessee€legislature€granted€corporateÐ ` ° Ðstatus€to€a€group€of€incorporators€for€the€formation€of€the€Chattanooga€Water€Company€in€ChapterÐ P   Ð91,€Section€19€òòet€seqóó.€of€the€1868€Public€Acts€of€the€General€Assembly€of€Tennessee.€€The€purposeÐ @  Ðof€the€corporation€was€to€establish€a€water€company€to€provide€service€within€the€city€ofÐ 0 € ÐChattanooga.€€The€corporation€was€granted€extensive€rights€relating€to€provision€of€water€service,Ð  p  Ðincluding€the€rights€to€enter€onto€private€property€to€install€and€maintain€pipes,€tanks,€fire€hydrants,Ð `  Ðand€related€facilities.€€After€that€venture€failed,€the€legislature€in€the€1869€Public€Acts€recognizedÐ P  Ðanother€corporation,€the€Lookout€Water€Company,€and€passed€to€this€new€entity,€ð ð.€.€.€all€the€rights,Ð ð@  Ðpowers€and€privileges€granted€to,€and€subject€to€all€the€rules,€restrictions€and€penalties€imposed€uponÐ à0  Ðthe€Chattanooga€Water€Company€.€.€..ðð€€The€parties€have€stipulated€that€Plaintiff/AppelleeÐ Ð  ÐTennessee„American€Water€Company€(ð ðPlaintiffðð)€succeeded€to€the€rights,€privileges,€duties,€andÐ À Ðlimitations€set€forth€in€the€1868€Act.Ð ° ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€original€charter€stated€a€corporate€existence€of€ninety„nine€years,€and€PlaintiffÐ à Ðamended€its€charter€in€1940€to€provide€for€a€perpetual€corporate€existence.€€This€grant€of€franchiseÐ €Ð Ðfrom€the€state€of€Tennessee€provides€Plaintiffððs€principal€claim€of€right€to€operate€as€a€waterÐ pÀ Ðcompany.€€Defendant/Appellant€City€of€Chattanooga€(ð ðDefendantðð)€never€granted€a€specificÐ `° Ðfranchise€to€Plaintiff€to€operate€within€the€corporate€boundaries€of€Defendant,€although€certainÐ P  Ðagreements,€permits,€ordinances,€and€the€course€of€conduct€of€the€parties€are€consistent€withÐ @ Ðrecognition€of€the€rights€established€in€the€1868€Act.€€Certain€disputes€arose€between€Plaintiff€andÐ 0€ ÐDefendant€during€the€1970s€when€Defendant,€according€to€the€Chancellor,€ð ð.€.€.€embarked€on€anÐ  p Ðaggressive€annexation€program,ðð€part€of€which€included€efforts€to€acquire€Plaintiff.€€In€1976€andÐ ` Ð1977,€Defendant,€by€ordinance,€granted€limited€water€service€franchises€to€Southern€CelluloseÐ P ÐProducts€and€Dixie€Yarns.€€Plaintiff€objected€to€these€franchises,€asserting€exclusive€right€to€provideÐ ð@ Ðwater€service€within€the€City€of€Chattanooga.€€Plaintiff€filed€suit€in€July€1977,€naming€as€partiesÐ à0 Ðdefendant€the€City€of€Chattanooga€and€the€two€companies€granted€water€service€franchises€by€theÐ Ð  ÐCity.€€Defendant€City€of€Chattanooga€filed€an€Answer€and€Counter„claim,€averring€in€the€Counter„Ð À! Ðclaim€ð ð.€.€.€that€the€original€charter€of€the€plaintiff€.€.€.€expired€on€March€10,€1967,€and€was€neverÐ °"  Ðvalidly€amended€to€enlarge€its€corporate€existence€€.€.€..ðð€€This€Counter„claim€was€based€upon€theÐ  #ð! Ðninety„nine€year€life€of€the€original€corporation,€and€asserted€claims€for€damages€arising€fromÐ $à" ÐPlaintiffððs€trespass€since€March€10,€1967.Ð €%Ð # ÐÌà  àà ` àFollowing€motions€for€summary€judgment,€the€Trial€Court€dismissed€the€Complaint,Ð `'°"% Ðfinding€that€Plaintiff€had€a€non„exclusive€franchise€to€provide€water€service€in€Chattanooga,€but€leftÐ P( #& Ðopen€the€issue€raised€in€Defendantððs€Counter„claim.€€Following€other€procedural€events€not€relevantÐ @)$' Ðto€the€issues€on€appeal,€Defendantððs€Counter„claim€was€tried€in€May,€1981,€but€no€decision€was€filedÐ 0*€%( Ðfor€reasons€not€apparent€from€the€record.€€In€March,€1999,€Plaintiff€filed€to€re„open€the€case.€€ClaimsÐ  +p&) Ðagainst€the€other€original€defendants€to€the€Complaint€were€dismissed€with€prejudice,€and€trial€onÐ ,`'* Ðthe€Counter„claim€was€held€during€August,€1999.€€On€October€11,€1999,€the€Trial€Court€filed€aÐ ° ÐMemorandum€Opinion€and€Order,€finding€that€the€franchise€arising€from€the€1868€Act€is€perpetualÐ  ð Ðand€did€not€expire€in€1967,€dismissing€Defendantððs€Counter„claim€for€trespass€as€well€as€the€originalÐ à ÐComplaint.€€There€is€no€dispute€concerning€the€non„exclusive€nature€of€Plaintiffððs€franchise.€€It€isÐ €Ð Ðfrom€the€October€11,€1999€Order€of€the€Chancellor€that€Defendant€appeals.Ð pÀ ÐÌòòò òÓ  ÓDiscussionó óóóÐ P   ÐÓ-"ÓÌà  àà ` àNeither€party€suggests€a€standard€for€our€review€of€the€Order€of€the€Chancery€Court,Ð 0 € Ðmoving€directly€into€argument€of€the€issues€presented€on€appeal.€€The€issues€as€presented€byÐ  p  ÐDefendant€are:Ð `  ÐÌà8  à1.€Whether€the€Chancery€Court€misconstrued€the€State„granted€franchise€held€byÐ ð@  ÐPlaintiff„Appellee€when€the€Court€found€it€to€be€a€perpetual€grant€instead€of€a€grantÐ à0  Ðfor€the€time€of€the€originally„granted€corporate€succession?ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à2.€€If€the€Chancery€Courtððs€construction€correctly€concluded€that€Plaintiff„AppelleeððsÐ ° Ðfranchise€constituted€a€vested,€perpetual€property€right,€whether€the€Chancery€CourtððsÐ  ð Ðconstruction€of€the€franchise€is€correct€to€include€all€of€present€day€ChattanoogaÐ à Ðinstead€of€Chattanooga€as€it€existed€at€the€time€the€interest€vested?ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÌÔ‡XûD XXXøsÔThis€case€was€tried€by€the€Chancellor€sitting€without€a€jury,€making€our€scope€of€review€on€appealÐ `° Ðòòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€below.€€This€òòóóreview€is€undertaken€with€a€presumption€that€the€findings€ofÐ Lœ Ðfact€by€the€Chancellor€are€correct,€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€suchÐ 8ˆ Ðfindings.€Ô_ÔT.R.A.P.Ô_Ô€Rule€13(d);€òòTown€of€Ô_ÔBrucetonÔ_Ô€v.€Arnoldóó,€818€S.W.2d€347,€349€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð $t Ð1991).Ô#†XøsX XXûDq&#ÔÔ#†¼ô»XXøsï #ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔÐ ` ÐÌà  àà ` àDefendantððs€argument€that€Plaintiffððs€franchise€ended€when€ninety„nine€years€hadÐ ì< Ðpassed€centers€upon€the€contention€that€the€grant€of€corporate€existence€with€a€stated€corporate€lifeÐ Ü, Ðof€ninety„nine€years€placed€an€absolute€limit€on€the€franchise€to€operate€as€a€water€company€inÐ Ì ÐChattanooga€granted€by€the€Tennessee€Legislature.€€The€Chancellor,€in€a€thorough€analysis€ofÐ ¼  Ðrelevant€statutes€and€cases,€found€that€language€contained€in€the€1868€Act€allowed€for€the€rightsÐ ¬!ü Ðgranted€in€the€franchise€to€be€assigned€to€the€successor€corporation.€€The€language€at€issue€reads:Ð œ"ì  ÐÌà8  àBe€it€further€enacted,€That€Thomas€J.€Ô_ÔCarlileÔ_Ô,€Robert€R.€Ô_ÔByardÔ_Ô,€R.E.€Ô_ÔMcEwenÔ_Ô,€theirÐ |$Ì" Ðassociates€and€successors€be,€and€they€are€hereby,€incorporated€a€body€corporate€andÐ l%¼ # Ðpolitic,€under€the€name€and€style€of€the€ð ðChattanooga€Water€Company;ðð€and€by€thatÐ \&¬!$ Ðname€and€style,€shall€have€succession€for€ninety„nine€years€.€.€..ÐL'œ"%Ð Ð  ÐÔ#†¼ô»XXøs)#ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔÌà8  à1868€Public€Acts€of€the€General€Assembly€of€TennesseeÔ#†¼ô»XXøs5.#ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔ,€Chapter€91,€Section€19.Ð,)|$'Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€finding€a€perpetual€grant,€the€Chancellor€rejected€Defendantððs€argument€that€theÐ  +\&) Ðfranchise€grant€lacked€the€ð ðmagic€wordsðð€necessary€to€create€the€authority€to€assign€the€rightsÐ ü+L'* Ðgranted.€€While,€under€the€common€law,€the€lack€of€the€term€ð ðsuccessors€and€assignsðð€created€a€mereÐ ° Ðlife€estate€in€property,€the€Chancellor€is€correct€that€the€law€applicable€at€the€time€of€the€franchiseÐ  ð Ðat€issue€eliminated€such€drafting€precision€in€favor€of€an€approach€that€applies€the€intention€of€theÐ à Ðparties€to€grants€of€property€rights.€€The€Chancellor€cited€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€66„5„101€and€its€predecessors,Ð €Ð Ðalong€with€supporting€citations,€in€finding€that€the€grant€of€franchise€was€perpetual€rather€thanÐ pÀ Ðlimited€to€the€stated€ninety„nine€year€life€of€the€corporation€itself.€€The€current€version€of€the€statuteÐ ` ° Ðreads:Ð P   ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà8  àEvery€grant€or€devise€of€real€estate,€or€any€interest€therein,€shall€pass€all€the€estate€orÐ 0 € Ðinterest€of€the€grantor€or€Ô_ÔdevisorÔ_Ô,€unless€the€intent€to€pass€a€less€estate€or€interest€shallÐ  p  Ðappear€by€express€terms,€or€be€necessarily€implied€in€the€terms€of€the€instrument.Ð` Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ:3ÓÓ  Óà8  àÔ_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€Ô#†¼ô»XXøs¹.#ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔðð€66„5„101Ô#†¼ô»XXøs85#ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔ.Ðð@ Ð Ð  ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼ô»XXøs‡5#ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔIn€response,€Defendant€asserts€that€the€statute€only€applies€to€transfers€of€title€in€fee€simple,€and€isÐ Ð  Ðnot€applicable€in€the€present€case€as€no€property€right€was€conveyed€by€the€Legislature€in€theÐ À Ðfranchise€grant.€€The€Opinion€of€the€Trial€Court€cites€as€authority€and€discusses€the€applicability€ofÐ ° ÐòòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Tennessee€Electric€Power€Co.óó,€112€S.W.2d€385€(Tenn.€1938).€€ð ðA€right€ofÐ  ð Ðway€upon€a€public€street,€whether€granted€by€act€of€the€legislature,€or€ordinance€of€city€council,€orÐ à Ðin€any€other€valid€mode,€is€an€easement,€and€as€such€is€a€property€right,€capable€of€assignment,€sale,Ð €Ð Ðand€mortgage,€and€entitled€to€all€the€constitutional€protection€afforded€other€property€rights€andÐ pÀ Ðcontracts.ððòò€Id.óó€at€390.€€Among€the€extensive€rights€granted€in€the€1868€Act,€although€in€more€arcaneÐ `° Ðlanguage,€is€the€right€to€condemn€property€for€necessary€easements.€€The€Chancellor€reasoned€thatÐ P  Ðthe€franchise€property€rights€granted€Plaintiffððs€predecessors€in€sections€24€and€25€of€the€1868€ActÐ @ Ðcontained€no€limiting€language,€and€that€the€ninety„nine€year€existence€applied€only€to€the€originalÐ 0€ Ðstated€corporation€existence.€€We€agree.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Chancellor€quoted€a€learned€treatise€for€the€proposition€that€the€intention€behindÐ P Ðestablishing€a€franchise€such€as€the€one€at€issue€is€to€create€a€perpetual€franchise.Ð ð@ ÐÌà8  àAccording€to€a€number€of€cases,€the€grant€of€a€franchise€to€a€public€utility€companyÐ Ð  Ðis€a€grant€of€a€property€right€in€perpetuity€unless€limited€in€duration€by€the€grantÐ À! Ðitself,€or€as€a€consequence€of€some€limitation€imposed€by€the€general€law€of€the€state,Ð °"  Ðor€by€the€powers€of€the€subordinate€agency€making€the€grant.Р#ð!Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à36€Ô_ÔAm.JurÔ_Ô.2d,€Franchises,€ðð€44.Ѐ%Ð #Ð Ð  ÐÌThe€Chancellor€further€cites€òòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Tennessee€Electric€Power€Co.óóÔ#†¼ô»XXøsð5#ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔ€as€authority€forÐ `'°"% Ðthe€finding€of€a€perpetual€grant.Ð P( #& ÐÌÓÖ4ÓÓ  Óà8  àThe€grant€of€a€franchise€to€a€public€utility€company€is,€according€to€the€weight€ofÐ 0*€%( Ðauthority,€a€grant€of€a€property€right€in€perpetuity,€unless€limited€in€duration€by€theÐ  +p&) Ðgrant€itself,€or€as€a€consequence€of€some€limitation€imposed€by€the€general€law€of€theÐ ,`'* Ðstate,€or€by€the€corporate€powers€of€the€municipality€making€the€grant.€€If€there€beÐ ° Ðauthority€to€make€the€grant,€and€it€contains€no€limitation€or€qualification€as€toÐ  ð Ðduration,€the€plainest€principles€of€justice€and€right€demand€that€it€shall€not€be€cutÐ à Ðdown,€in€the€absence€of€some€controlling€principle€of€public€policy.€€This€conclusionÐ €Ð Ðfinds€support€from€a€consideration€of€the€public€and€permanent€character€of€theÐ pÀ Ðbusiness€utility€companies€conduct,€and€the€large€investment€which€is€generallyÐ ` ° Ðcontemplated.ÐP  Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àòòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Tennessee€Elec.€Power€Co.óóÔ#†¼ô»XXøs ?#ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔ,€112€S.W.2d€385€at€389„390.Ð0 €Ð Ð  ÐÔ#†¼ô»XXøsëC#ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔÌDefendant€cites€no€persuasive€authority€to€establish€error€in€the€legal€reasoning€set€forth€in€theÐ `  ÐChancellorððs€Opinion,€and€we€find€no€support€for€Defendantððs€argument€on€appeal€that€the€franchiseÐ P  Ðitself,€and€not€just€the€original€corporate€existence,€was€limited€to€ninety„nine€years.Ð ð@  ÐÌà  àà ` àIt€is€obvious€from€the€action€of€the€Legislature€in€1869€that€the€rights€granted€in€theÐ Ð  Ð1868€Act€were€assignable.€€The€Legislature€assigned€the€rights€to€the€new€corporation,€LookoutÐ À ÐWater€Company.€€This€assignment€was€stated€as€being€ð ð.€.€.€with€all€the€rights,€powers€and€privilegesÐ ° Ðgranted€to,€and€subject€to€all€the€rules,€restrictions€and€penalties€imposed€upon€the€ChattanoogaÐ  ð ÐWater€Company€by€Act€of€the€General€Assembly€.€.€.ðð€1869€Public€Acts€of€the€General€AssemblyÐ à Ðof€TennesseeÔ#†¼ô»XXøshD#ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔ,€Chapter€51,€Section€12.€€We€note€that€the€ninety„nine€year€existence€is€not€recited€inÐ €Ð Ðthe€1869€Act,€and€is€argued€on€appeal€as€one€of€the€ð ðrestrictions€and€penaltiesðð€referenced€by€theÐ pÀ ÐLegislature.€€This€interpretation€is€strained€at€best,€and€certainly€does€not€indicate€legislative€intentÐ `° Ðto€limit€the€franchise€to€the€ninety„nine€year€existence€granted€the€original€corporation€in€the€1868Ð P  ÐAct.€€€Defendant€does€not€accept€the€Chancellorððs€position€Ô#†¼ô»XXøswH#ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔthat€the€creation€of€the€corporation,€withÐ @ Ða€stated€life€of€ninety„nine€years,€is€separate€from€the€grant€of€the€franchise,€which,€throughÐ 0€ Ðassignment€as€previously€discussed,€passed€from€the€original€incorporators€listed€in€the€1868€Act,Ð  p Ðto€the€incorporators€listed€in€the€1869€Act,€and€subsequently€to€the€present€Plaintiff€whose€charterÐ ` Ðwas€amended€in€1940€to€provide€for€perpetual€existence€in€place€of€the€previous€ninety„nine€yearÐ P Ðexistence.Ð ð@ ÐÓ–?ÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àDefendant€cites€as€authority€opinions€of€the€United€States€Supreme€Court,Ô_Ô׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€which€areÐ Ð  Ðdistinguished€as€dealing€with€issues€not€on€point€to€the€present€appeal.€€We€agree€with€the€ChancellorÐ À! Ðthat,€as€noted€in€the€Opinion€on€appeal,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€quoted€with€approval€fromÐ °"  Ðanother€opinion€of€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€declaring€perpetuity€of€a€utility€franchise€toÐ  #ð! Ðbe€the€logical€approach.Ð $à" ÐÓ@MÓÐ €%Ð # ÐÓ  Óà8  àA€leading€case€on€this€subject€is€òòLouisville€v.€Cumberland€Ô_ÔTelephÔ_Ô.€&€Teleg.€€Coóó.,€224Ð ° ÐU.S.€649,€32€Ô_ÔS.CtÔ_Ô.€572,€576,€56€Ô_ÔL.EdÔ_Ô.€934,€wherein€it€appears€that€the€telephoneÐ  ð Ðcompany€was€operating€in€the€City€of€Louisville€under€a€franchise€granted€to€itsÐ à Ðpredecessors,€which€authorized€the€use€of€the€streets€of€the€city€for€the€purpose€ofÐ €Ð Ðoperating€telephone€lines€thereon,€and€which€was€without€limit€as€to€duration.€€TheÐ pÀ Ðcontention€was€made€that€the€original€grant€of€street€rights,€having€been€indefiniteÐ ` ° Ðas€to€time,€was€either€void€ab€initio,€or€revocable€at€the€will€of€the€general€council,Ð P   Ðor€that€it€expired€in€1893€when€Louisville€was€made€a€city€of€the€first€class,€with€newÐ @  Ðand€enlarged€power.€€In€the€course€of€the€opinion€the€court€said:Ð0 €Ð Ð  ÐÌà0  àà8` (#(#àIn€considering€the€duration€of€such€a€franchise€it€is€necessary€to€consider€thatÐ `  Ða€telephone€system€cannot€be€operated€without€the€use€of€poles,€conduits,Ð P  Ðwires,€and€fixtures.€€These€structures€are€permanent€in€their€nature€andÐ ð@  Ðrequire€a€large€investment€for€their€erection€and€construction.€€To€say€that€theÐ à0  Ðright€to€maintain€these€appliances€was€only€a€license,€which€could€be€revokedÐ Ð  Ðat€will,€would€operate€to€nullify€the€charter€itself,€and€thus€defeat€the€state'sÐ À Ðpurpose€to€secure€a€telephone€system€for€public€use.€€For,€manifestly,€no€oneÐ ° Ðwould€have€been€willing€to€incur€the€heavy€expense€of€installing€theseÐ  ð Ðnecessary€and€costly€fixtures€if€they€were€removable€at€will€of€the€city,€andÐ à Ðthe€utility€and€value€of€the€entire€plant€be€thereby€destroyed.€€Such€aÐ €Ð Ðconstruction€of€the€charter€cannot€be€supported,€either€from€a€practical€orÐ pÀ Ðtechnical€standpoint.Ð`°` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà0  àà8` (#(#àThis€grant€was€not€at€will,€nor€for€years,€nor€for€the€life€of€the€city.€€NeitherÐ @ Ðwas€it€made€terminable€upon€the€happening€of€a€future€event;€but€it€was€aÐ 0€ Ðnecessary€and€integral€part€of€the€other€franchises€conferred€upon€theÐ  p Ðcompany,€all€of€which€were€perpetual,€and€none€of€which€could€be€exercisedÐ ` Ðwithout€this€essential€right€to€use€the€streets.ÐP` Ð ` Ð  Ðà  àÌòòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Tennessee€Elec.€Power€Co.óó,Ô#†¼ô»XXøsÙJ#ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔ€112€S.W.2d€at€391.Ô#†¼ô»XXøs[#ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔÐ à0 ÐÓøOÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àWe€agree€with€the€Chancellor€that,€as€the€franchise€grant€itself€had€no€limitingÐ À! Ðlanguage€as€to€the€duration€of€the€rights€granted,€the€original€ninety„nine€year€limit€on€the€existenceÐ °"  Ðof€the€corporation€does€not€convert€the€franchise€from€the€presumption€of€perpetuity€for€such€utilityÐ  #ð! Ðfranchises€to€one€of€limited€duration€that€ended€in€1967.Ð $à" ÐÓª[ÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àAs€for€Defendantððs€second€issue,€Plaintiff€responds€that€the€limitation€of€PlaintiffððsÐ p&À!$ Ðfranchise€to€the€1868€boundaries€of€Chattanooga€was€not€raised€before€the€Chancellor€at€trial,€andÐ `'°"% Ðit€cannot€be€raised€on€appeal.Ð P( #& ÐÌà8  àIt€is€well-settled€that€issues€not€raised€at€trial€may€not€be€raised€for€the€first€time€onÐ 0*€%( Ðappeal.€òòSimpson€v.€Frontier€Community€Credit€Unionóó,€810€S.W.2d€147,€153Ð  +p&) Ð(Tenn.1991);€€òòLawrence€v.€Stanfordóó,€655€S.W.2d€927,€929€(Tenn.1983).€€Ð,`'*Ð Ð  Їà8  àòòÔ_ÔChadwellÔ_Ô€v.€Knox€Countyóó,Ô#†¼ô»XXøse[#ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔ€980€S.W.2d€378,€384€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998)(quoting€Ô#†¼ô»XXøs~`#ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔòòStateÐ ° Ðv.€Ô_ÔDefrieceÔ_Ôóó,€937€S.W.2d€954€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1996);€òòCf.óó,€òòState€v.€Lewisóó,Ô#†¼ô»XXøsó`#ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔ€958€S.W.2dÐ  ð Ð736,€738€(Tenn.€1997)Ô#†¼ô»XXøsÇa#ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔ(Ô#†¼ô»XXøs>b#ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔwhere€an€issue€regarding€double€jeopardy€in€a€criminal€caseÐ à Ðwas€not€raised€at€trial,€the€Court€nevertheless€addressed€the€issue€ð ðin€order€to€correctÐ €Ð Ðan€error€of€constitutional€dimension€and€to€prevent€manifest€injusticeÔ#†¼ô»XXøsb#ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔðð).ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ô»XXøsÉc#ÔÔ‡XøsX»¼ôÔÌÓ  ÓDefendant€responds€that€the€issue€was€raised€at€trial€ð ðby€implication.ðð€€The€record€does€not€supportÐ P   ÐDefendantððs€position.€€Even€under€the€approach€taken€by€the€Court€in€òòState€v.€Lewisóó,€DefendantÐ @  Ðalleges€neither€error€of€constitutional€dimension€nor€manifest€injustice€€in€this€appeal.Ô#†¼ô»XXøs