ÿWPC( .# ”U:Ÿ %Ù 0(ßb w@4Sgn­v# 0J# 0Tm 0^Á 0h 0r‡ 0|ù 0†u 0û 1u‹ 0d U*d B)Ž AQ· Æ 0DÎ 0@ 0DR DC– D/Ù B B% D3B AMu  v~× vÓU˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù - ›DœžDŸ D¡U¢£Ó€­zƒ=#3|x­«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó7Border 1dd(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd!#%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌOctober€22,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ X ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€oÎXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÙ€!ÙßR€*+%A1-j|Ó` ç `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌJOYCE€BERRYHILL€andà àà àà à)ÌCARTINA€BERRYHILL,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌRON€G.€SWINEA€and€wife,à àà à)à àÌWILLIE€JO€SWINEA,€à àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9702„CH„00082Ìà àDefendants/Appellees/Third„à à)Ìà àParty€Plaintiffs/Appellants,à àà à)€à àLawrence€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€6243„93ÌWILLIAM€TUCKER;€RANDY€TUCKER€à à)Ìand€wife,€DONNA€E.€TUCKER;à àà à)ÌCLELAND€EZELL€and€wife,à àà à)ÌSHIRLEY€EZELL,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees/Third„à à)Ìà àParty€Plaintiffs,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌMARGIE€L.€NEWTON,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àThird„Party€Defendant.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€LAWRENCE€COUNTYÌAT€LAWRENCEBURG,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€JAMES€L.€WEATHERFORD,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌRANDY€HILLHOUSEÌ327€West€Gaines€StreetÌP.€O.€Box€787ÌLawrenceburg,€Tennessee€38464Ìà àAttorney€for€Plaintiffs/AppellantsÌÌCHARLES€W.€HOLT,€JR.ÌP.€O.€Box€357ÌLawrenceburg,€Tennessee€38464Ìà àAttorney€for€Defendants/AppelleesÌÌPAUL€PLANTÌP.€O.€Box€399ÌLawrenceburg,€Tennessee€38464Ìà àAttorney€for€DefendantÌÌÌà@ àREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌKOCH,€J.ÌÓÓÓ  Óà@ àò òòòÔ€„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€XÔÌÑ ° ÑÑ  ÑÌà àà àThe€parties€to€this€boundary€line€dispute€all€acknowledged€that€theÏdeeds€to€their€respective€properties€described€their€common€boundary€as€aÏstraight€line,€but€they€differed€as€to€the€correct€placement€of€that€line.€€AfterÏhearing€all€the€proof,€the€trial€court€ordered€a€new€survey€to€establish€a€boundaryÏline€whose€bearings€changed€in€mid„course,€giving€each€of€the€parties€some€ofÏwhat€they€claimed.€€We€reverse€the€order€of€the€trial€court,€because€we€can€find€noÏevidence€in€the€record€to€support€it.ÌÌà@ àò òI.€The€Origins€of€the€Disputeó óÌÌà àà à€All€the€properties€in€dispute€are€derived€from€a€tract€of€LawrenceÏCounty€land€totaling€253€acres,€which€had€been€owned€by€Mr.€W.T.€Baker.€€InÏ1945,€Mr.€Baker€conveyed€the€southern€113€acres€of€this€combined€property€to€hisÏson,€Calvin€Baker.€€The€northern€boundary€of€the€property€conveyed€away€wasÏdescribed€as€running€from€a€point€on€the€railroad€in€a€straight€line€north€76ð$ð€westÏ214€poles€to€the€western€boundary.€€Through€a€series€of€transactions,€including€aÏ1961€sale€to€Waymon€Berryhill€and€Billy€G.€Mabry,€this€property€eventuallyÏdevolved€to€the€plaintiffs,€Joyce€Berryhill€and€her€daughter,€Cartina€Berryhill.€ÌÌà àà àIn€1965,€Mr.€Baker€sold€his€remaining€property,€in€a€deed€whichÏdescribed€it€as€ð ðconsisting€of€140€acres,€more€or€less.ðð€€The€southern€boundaryÏline€of€this€property€contained€essentially€the€same€description€as€the€northernÏline€of€the€property€previously€conveyed€to€Calvin€Baker.€€The€real€estate€passedÏthrough€several€hands€before€becoming€the€property€of€Marjorie€Lynch€NewtonÏand€her€husband€in€1972.€€The€Newtons€built€a€house€and€established€a€peachÏand€apple€orchard€on€the€property.ÌÌà àà àThe€Newtons€divorced,€and€in€1990€Mr.€Newton€quitclaimed€hisÏinterest€in€the€property€to€his€former€wife.€€In€1992,€Ms.€Newton€divided€the€landÏinto€eight€tracts,€which€were€sold€at€auction.€€The€defendants€in€this€case€are€theÏpurchasers€of€four€tracts€which€adjoin€the€Berryhill€property.ÌÌà àà àThe€parties€agree€on€the€beginning€point€at€the€railroad.€€An€oldÏfence€begins€at€that€point€and€extends€about€2000€feet€north„westward€in€aÏstraight€line€before€turning€almost€due€south.€€The€Newtons€had€built€a€drivewayÏthat€extended€about€800€feet€along€the€northern€side€of€that€fence.€€The€BerryhillsÏcontend€that€the€line€follows€that€fence,€and€continues€in€a€straight€line€fromÏwhere€the€fence€turns,€and€they€produced€evidence€that€the€line€is€marked€by€aÏseries€of€blazes€on€a€line€of€old€trees.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendants€(or€their€predecessor,€Ms.€Newton)€had€installed€aÏsingle€strand€barbed€wire€fence,€beginning€at€the€agreed€upon€point€on€theÏrailroad,€but€following€a€more€southerly€angle,€and€they€claimed€all€the€land€northÏof€this€new€fence.€€The€Berryhills€subsequently€sued€to€establish€the€correctÏboundary€line.ÌÌà àà àAt€trial€the€defendants€argued€that€the€true€property€line€was€an€evenÏolder€fence€(no€longer€in€existence)€that€had€enclosed€a€cattle€lane€used€by€W.T.ÏBaker.€€Though€they€were€able€to€produce€photographs€at€trial€of€pieces€of€an€oldÏstyle€of€web€wire€fencing€that€could€be€found€along€the€edge€of€the€old€cattle€lane,Ïthey€did€not€produce€any€evidence€that€the€fence€in€question€corresponded€to€anyÏof€the€descriptions€in€the€deeds.€€Instead,€they€relied€upon€a€survey€of€the€propertyÏthat€had€been€commissioned€by€Ms.€Newton€after€the€sale€of€her€property.€€TheÍdefendants€also€filed€a€third€party€claim€against€Ms.€Newton,€for€breach€ofÏwarranty€of€title,€in€the€event€that€the€Berryhills€prevailed€on€their€claim.€ÌÌà àà àAfter€hearing€testimony€from€the€parties,€their€neighbors€and€twoÏsurveyors,€the€trial€court€ordered€that€an€independent€surveyor€be€appointed€toÏestablish€a€a€new€boundary€line,ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ „ ÒÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓð ðBEGINNING€at€a€point€immediately€adjacent€to€the€driveÏand€following€the€fence€immediately€adjacent€to€the€driveÏto€a€point€where€the€fence€turns€in€a€southerly€direction;Ïthence€from€that€point€in€a€straight€line€to€a€point€217€feetÏsouth€of€the€northwest€corner€of€the€Berryhill€property€asÏshown€on€the€survey€of€J.T.Dixon.ððÌÌÌÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àà àThe€boundary€line€established€by€the€courtððs€order€ran€from€theÏrailroad€with€the€old€fence€to€the€point€where€it€turned€south;€then€the€line€ran€at€aÏdifferent€angle€to€a€point€217€feet€south€of€the€point€where€the€extension€of€the€oldÏfence€line€intersected€the€western€edge€of€the€property.€€The€plaintiffs€appealled,Ïas€did€the€defendants€Ron€G.€Swinea€and€his€wife,€Willie€Jo€Swinea.ÌÌà@ àò òII.€The€Cleghorn€Surveyó óÌÌà àà àWe€can€find€no€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€the€€boundaryÏordered€by€the€trial€court.€€The€parties€insist€that€all€their€deeds€indicate€a€straightÍline€boundary.€€The€surveys€relied€upon€by€both€parties€agree€as€to€the€startingÏpoint€of€that€boundary.€€They€only€disagree€as€to€its€proper€bearing.€€ÌÌà àà àPerhaps€the€most€revealing€testimony€in€this€case€was€that€of€Mr.ÏEddie€Cleghorn,€who€surveyed€the€Newton€property.€€Mr.€Cleghorn€first€assumedÏthat€the€fence€line€would€be€the€boundary.€€But€when€he€ran€the€fence€line€out,€heÏdiscovered€that€the€acreage€of€the€Newton€property€would€come€up€short€of€theÏamount€called€for€in€the€original€deed€from€Mr.€Baker.€€He€then€had€a€discussionÏwith€the€auctioneer,€John€Marion€ð ðSkeetsðð€Eskridge,€from€which€he€understoodÏthat€Mr.€Eskridge€had€gotten€permission€from€the€Berryhills€to€run€the€line€furtherÏsouth.ÌÌà àà àMr.€Cleghorn€subsequently€drafted€a€survey€which€indicated€aÏsouthern€boundary€for€the€Newton€property€with€a€bearing€of€North€74€degreesÏ06'€03"€West.€The€deeds€Ms.€Newton€issued€to€the€defendants€all€recited€thisÏbearing.€€However,€all€the€deeds€in€both€the€Newtonððs€and€the€Berryhillððs€chainsÏof€title€recited€a€bearing€of€North€76€degrees€0'€0"€West.€€Joyce€Berryhill€testifiedÏthat€she€never€agreed€that€the€line€belonged€where€Mr.€Cleghorn€attempted€toÏplace€it.ÌÌà àà àOn€direct,€Mr.€Cleghorn€testified€as€follows:€ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ „ ÒÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àQ.à àWould€you€have€issued€your€survey,€if€youÏhad€some€other€understanding€or€agreement?€€€ÌÌà àA.à àNo,€sir.ÌÌà àQ.à àWhy€not?ÌÌà àA.à àIt€just€wouldnððt€be€good€business€practice.ÌÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌà àà àHis€testimony€on€this€point€was€further€clarified€under€cross„examination:ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ „ ÒÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àQ.à àDid€I€understand€you,€that€you€would€notÏhave€marked€this€as€the€south€boundary€line€unless€youÏhad€understood€that€my€clients€agreed€to€it?ÌÌà àA.à àRight.ÌÌà àQ.à àThe€reason€for€that€is€thereððs€just€nothing€toÏindicate€that€this€is€the€south€boundary€line?ÌÌà àA.à àRight.€ÌÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÌÓÓÌÌÌà@ àò òIII.€The€Dixon€Surveyó óÌÌà àà àAfter€they€became€aware€of€the€Cleghorn€survey€of€the€NewtonÏproperty,€the€plaintiffs€hired€another€licensed€surveyor,€Mr.€J.T.€Dixon,€to€surveyÏtheir€own€land.€Mr.€Dixon€found€that€the€fence€row€had€a€true€north€bearing€ofÍNorth€76€degrees€0'0"€West.€€He€testified€that€he€and€his€crew€found€old€hacksÏand€blazes€along€the€same€line€after€the€fence€turned,€all€the€way€to€the€westernÏboundary€of€the€Berryhill€property.€ÌÌà àà àMr.€Dixon€also€checked€on€the€records€of€the€adjoining€properties,Ïgoing€back€to€Mr.€Baker,€and€discovered€a€1963€land€line€agreement€between€Mr.ÏBaker€and€Mr.€Meiers,€who€owned€the€property€to€the€north€and€west€of€Mr.ÏBakerððs€tract.€€He€testified€that€in€straightening€the€line€between€their€respectiveÏproperties,€the€agreement€had€taken€about€eighteen€acres€off€the€north€side€of€theÏBaker€farm,€and€he€suggested€that€this€accounted€for€the€shortfall€in€acreage€onÏthe€Newton€property€that€Mr.€Cleghorn€discovered.€€Interestingly,€the€boundary€heÏdrew€gave€the€Berryhills€about€114€acres,€only€slightly€more€than€had€beenÏgranted€by€W.T.€Baker€in€the€1945€deed€to€his€son.€ÌÌà àà àOn€cross„examination,€the€defendantsðð€attorney€managed€to€bringÏout€some€discrepancies€between€the€calls€in€the€deed€and€the€boundariesÏdescribed€in€the€survey.€In€particular,€the€northern€boundary€line€was€160€feetÏlonger€in€the€survey€than€was€called€for€in€the€deed€(4,191€feet).€€Mr.€DixonÏadmitted€that€the€bearing€of€the€line€would€have€to€be€turned€sharply€to€the€southÏin€order€for€it€to€close€at€the€distance€called€for€in€the€deed.€ÌÌà àà àNeither€the€judgeððs€order€nor€his€statements€at€trial€indicate€how€heÏarrived€at€the€decision€to€order€another€survey€to€establish€a€new€boundary.ÏApparently€he€found€credible€evidence€on€both€sides,€and€we€are€tempted€toÏspeculate€that€he€found€Mr.€Dixonððs€testimony€as€to€the€correct€bearing€of€theÏboundary€to€be€persuasive,€but€was€disturbed€by€the€contradictory€testimony€as€toÏblazes€and€marks€on€the€trees€west€of€the€fence€line.€€Several€witnesses,Ïincluding€Mr.€Cleghorn€and€Mr.€Eskridge,€testified€that€they€could€not€find€anyÏsuch€marks.Ìà àÌà àà àIn€any€case,€it€is€clear€that€the€trial€court€did€not€find€the€surveyÏdrawn€by€Mr.€Cleghorn€to€accurately€reflect€the€boundaries€called€for€in€theÏdeeds,€as€the€line€he€ordered€drawn€nowhere€follows€that€survey.ÌÌà@ àò òIV.€The€Role€of€the€Chancelloró óÌÌà àà àThough€the€chancery€court€has€jurisdiction€to€determine€a€boundaryÏline,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„11„106,€it€is€the€duty€of€the€chancellor€to€uphold€theÏboundaries€described€in€the€deed,€if€at€all€possible.€€If€the€description€found€in€theÏdeed€is€so€inconsistent€that€some€its€calls€must€be€rejected,€then€there€is€anÏestablished€order€of€precedence€to€be€followed€between€different€calls,€subjectÏonly€to€the€consideration€that€the€controlling€call€should€be€the€one€mostÏconsistent€with€the€intention€of€the€grantor.ÌÌà àà àThis€order€of€precedence€is€described€as€follows€inòò€City€of€JohnsonÏCity€v.€State,óó€202€Tenn.€318,€304€S.W.2d€317€(1957),€quoting€16€AmJur€ðð€262:€ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ „ ÒÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓð ðIn€the€event€that€two€or€more€of€the€descriptive€elementsÏused€conflict€with€or€are€inconsistent€with€the€others,€resortÏis€first€to€be€had€to€natural€objects€or€landmarks,€next€toÏartificial€marks,€then€to€adjacent€boundaries,€and€then€toÏcourses€and€distances,€unless€it€appears€that€mistakesÏexist€in€respect€to€the€calls,€in€which€event€an€inferiorÏmeans€of€location€may€control€a€higher€one.€€That€ruleÏshould€be€adopted€which€is€most€consistent€with€the€intentÏof€the€grant.ðð€€€€€€à àÌÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓ202€Tenn.€at€323,€304€S.W.2d€at€320.ÌÌà àà àMonuments€and€landmarks€do€not€figure€prominently€in€the€presentÏcase,€except€for€the€2000€foot€fence,€which€is€not€mentioned€in€the€deeds€of€eitherÏparty.€€The€deeds€indicate€a€straight€line€boundary€with€a€bearing€of€North€76Ïdegrees€0'€0"€West€between€the€portion€of€the€property€Mr.€Baker€conveyed€to€hisÏson,€and€the€portion€he€retained.€€The€fence€line€adopted€as€the€boundary€by€Mr.ÏDixon€had€the€correct€bearing.€€Neither€the€line€defined€by€the€Cleghorn€surveyÏnor€the€one€ordered€by€the€judge€followed€the€deed.€ÌÌà àà àThe€consistency€between€the€amount€of€acreage€conveyed€to€theÏBerryhillsðð€predecessor€and€the€amount€enclosed€by€the€Dixon€survey€is€anotherÏargument€for€that€surveyððs€accuracy.€€The€discrepancy€first€discovered€by€Mr.ÍCleghorn€between€the€acreage€recited€in€the€Newton€deed€and€the€acreage€northÏof€the€Berryhillsðð€fence€line€can€be€explained€by€the€1963€boundary€lineÏsettlement€between€Mr.€Baker€and€his€neighbor€to€the€north.€ÌÌà àà àThe€discrepancy€between€the€length€of€the€northern€boundary€calledÏfor€in€the€Berryhillsðð€deed,€and€its€length€as€measured€in€the€Dixon€surveyÏamounts€to€between€3%€and€4%€of€the€deed€amount.€€The€proof€showed€that€theÏeastern€one„third€of€the€property€was€relatively€level€and€was€mostly€clearedÏfields,€while€the€western€portion€was€wooded€and€hilly.€€A€discrepancy€of€thisÏmagnitude€is€not€surprising,€given€the€difficulties€inherent€in€measurement€overÏuneven€ground.€€In€any€case,€we€would€find€it€hard€to€believe€that€the€originalÏgrantor€intended€for€the€length€of€this€line€to€control€over€its€bearing,€when€thatÏbearing€is€measured€from,€and€determines€the€boundary€of,€the€more€productiveÏportion€of€the€property.€ÌÌà àà àFor€all€these€reasons,€we€find€that€the€correct€boundary€line€may€beÏdetermined€with€reference€to€the€Dixon€survey,€and€we€reverse€the€trial€court.€ÌÌà@ àò òV.€€The€Third€Party€Complaintó óÌÌà àà àThe€Court€granted€the€motion€to€dismiss€the€third€party€complaintÏagainst€Margie€L.€Newton,€statingÌÒ 0 ÒÒ „ ÒÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓð ðThe€Court€finds€the€motion€to€be€well€taken,€it€being€theÏopinion€of€the€court€that€the€sale€was€in€gross€and€not€byÏthe€acre;€and€there€being€no€evidence€nor€allegation€ofÏany€misrepresentation€or€fraud€of€any€kind€on€behalf€of€theÏThird„Party€Defendant€or€her€agents,€that€the€Third„PartyÏComplaint€would€not€lie.ððÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÌÓÓà àà àThe€court€apparently€concluded€that€the€defendants€knew€what€theyÏwere€bargaining€for,€and€that€since€they€received€it,€they€should€not€be€heard€toÏcomplain€if€upon€survey€the€acreage€was€less€than€they€believed€it€to€be.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€deeds€to€the€four€defendants€set€out€the€boundaries€of€the€landÏconveyed,€and€nowhere€do€they€state€the€acreage€involved.€€The€price€is€a€recitedÏas€a€lump€sum€rather€than€a€per€acre€price.€€It€thus€appears€that€the€trial€court€was€Ïcorrect€in€characterizing€the€sale€as€one€in€gross€rather€than€by€the€acreage.€€€ÌÌà àà àHowever,€the€defendants/third„party€plaintiffs€argue€that€their€claimÏagainst€Ms.€Newton€rests€upon€an€entirely€different€footing,€and€we€agree.€€TheÏwarranty€deeds€she€issued€all€recite€a€southern€boundary€with€a€bearing€of€NorthÏ74€degrees€06'€03"€West.€€The€deeds€further€go€on€to€state,€in€fairly€standardÏlanguage:ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ „ ÒÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓð ð.€.€.€I€am€lawfully€seized€and€possessed€of€said€land€inÏFee€Simple,€have€a€good€right€to€convey€it,€and€the€sameÏis€unincumbered.Ìà àAnd€I€do€further€covenant€and€bind€myself,€my€heirsÏand€representatives,€to€warrant€and€forever€defend€the€titleÏto€said€land€to€the€said€[names€of€defendants],€their€heirsÍand€assigns,€against€the€lawful€claims€of€all€personsÏwhomever.ÌÌÌÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àà àThe€defendants€contend€that€the€action€of€the€trial€court€had€theÏeffect€of€evicting€them€from€a€portion€of€the€land€granted€to€them€in€the€deed,€thusÏcreating€a€cause€of€action€for€breach€of€warranty.€€They€further€claim€that€if€itÏshould€be€found€that€they€have€not€been€evicted,€then€they€still€have€a€claimÏagainst€Ms.€Newton€for€breach€of€covenant€of€seisen.€ÌÌà àà àBlackððs€Law€Dictionary€(Fourth€Ed.€1951)€defines€covenant€ofÏwarranty€as€ð ð[a]n€assurance€by€the€grantor€of€an€estate€that€the€grantee€shallÏenjoy€the€same€without€interruption€by€virtue€of€paramount€title.ðð€€Covenant€ofÏseisin€is€defined€as€ð ð[a]n€assurance€to€the€purchaser€that€the€grantor€has€the€veryÏestate€in€quantity€and€quality€which€he€purports€to€convey.ðð€ÌÌà àà àThis€court€has€stated€in€much€the€same€language€that:ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ „ ÒÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓð ðWe€recognize€that€it€is€established€law€that€if€theÏpurchaser€has€not€been€evicted,€in€the€absence€of€fraud€orÏinsolvency,€€he€can€have€no€remedy€for€a€breach€ofÏwarranty.€€(Citations€omitted).Ìà àð ðHowever,€the€rule€is€different€as€to€a€covenant€ofÏseisin.€€A€covenant€of€seisen€is€an€assurance€to€theÏpurchaser€that€the€seller€has€the€very€estate,€in€quantityÏand€quality,€which€the€deed€purports€to€convey,€it€is€aÏpersonal€covenant€preaesenti,and,€if€not€true,€is€breachedÏthe€instant€it€is€made,€and€an€immediate€course€of€actionÍaccrues€to€the€vendee€for€its€breach€without€and€beforeÏeviction.ðð€(Citations€omitted).ÌÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓòòThompson€v.€Thomasóó,€499€S.W.2d€901,€903€(Tenn.€App.€1973).€ÌÌà àà àIn€view€of€the€fact€that€Ms.€Newton€conveyed€to€the€defendantsÏproperty€that€she€had€did€not€have€the€right€to€dispose€of,€it€appears€that€theÏdefendants€have€at€the€very€least€a€cause€of€action€against€her€for€breach€of€theÏcovenant€of€seisin,€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€their€third€partyÏcomplaint.€€It€also€appears€that€the€court€is€obliged€to€exercise€its€equitableÏpowers€to€reform€the€defendantsðð€deeds.€ÌÌÌà@ àò òVI.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€order€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed.€€Remand€this€cause€to€theÏChancery€Court€of€Lawrence€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÏopinion.€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellees.€ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÇÑ  Ñ