ÿWPCB .£¦”^¬ýα©úCÇ&ÃÖ€c…áóÍçûkÚÞ7YúÄ1ЪÏé'o>ë•LqLˆ°ˆ,(–KCˆV36++½‘‘ƒŸ ²ÝáGf´ù©=!þ¼É¶îr‰!I";õ9õyÝ®>|0òÊ7pÈ!ëuóãA{¢°!uÆÊ'Ê#Y;Žuo©ØŸ<øåZڮíQ–§éªÇ–›¼¶¥ð¥kz‹GìѨ¼¶Ù…Ø뀥IvŒ'Yõìl¶ÃÊ™øH‡\ììf#páZ;`4J¢’fÍʵ´0ÒÆ°!¦:C7QœKqŽž(S V>§Âäd¶D!*»¨©l½+s«‚/'Èç³,˜;Q*fÔï¾U¶‚o¸žÖÓ_øý+ÕPnkZé¤3fÆÈÕ©ëî{¡–jé8Œ‰ýásMÛÄÔ`ñpSÉ:²wèOç\0º:^ëø­¬,w;ŽÀEtú]kÁ&IDƒÎ©Aò™¼8BÊ ¸¦+}v¯ïæø=üäùïnd`áçuÙL¸Ñ‡ØÊh–ðç; ³j%!jÈå^þÖMZýÃÓc}™Ç  ý<Ñ ävÈdèéÊ(w0™£ô)gÑœ\zy“ŽÔ`NF)Þ¢‘]Õ3W•Â %W]n­m 04 4N b w| € bˆ #Á NQ ^ S _ ma U Nx ¬Æ UNr r 1uÀ &5E[[p]] 72Í 0 cÿ b 0 xj â ê ò 0 DúU@> ~ †¡Žð/  ¨)ÞÑÑѯ¯¯¯¯®qq  B% ‹Ý ƒÝé$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFrom€the€inception€of€the€suit€until€October€16,€1985,€Keith€McCord€representedÐ `  ÐPlaintiff.€€€Richard€Wallace€then€represented€Mr.€Brown,€until€November€29,€1994.€€CarlÐ L ì ÐÔ_ÔEshbaughÔ_Ô€began€representing€Mr.€Brown€on€February€16,€1995.€X3|x«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@( ¤T$¡¡Ó  ÓÑuV)Ó  ÓShelby - ù-˜HP LaserJet 4050 SeriÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0B’ +â ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ¢Ý ƒÝé$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFrom€the€inception€of€the€suit€until€October€16,€1985,€Keith€McCord€representedÐ `  Ðplaintiff.€€€Richard€Wallace€then€represented€Mr.€Brown€until€November€29,€1994.€€CarlÐ L ì ÐÔ_ÔEshbaughÔ_Ô,€present€legal€counsel,€began€representing€Mr.€Brown€on€February€16,€1995.€(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)\Opinion Summary fÝ ƒÝé$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€òòIÔ‡XGäXXXÔn€re€United€States€of€America€v.€Dwight€W.€Ogle,€Bonnie€A.€Brown,€Robert€T.Ð `  ÐNewman,€and€Diana€G.€Brownóó,€Eastern€District€of€Tennessee,€Docket€Number€CR„3„86„16.Ô#†XGäXXXGäm#Ôi)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à1(((3Ýé$¤¤Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó345(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman 89 —Ý ƒÝé$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMr.€Brown€filed€allegations€with€the€IRS€that€his€wife€and€the€other€Defendants€were€notÐ `  Ðreporting€all€their€income€and€paying€the€appropriate€income€tax;€he€also€sought€a€reward€fromÐ L ì Ðthe€IRS€for€reporting€Ô_ÔhisÔ_Ô€wife€and€the€other€Defendants. æÝ ƒÝé$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note,€however,€€that€the€divorce€action€was€concluded€on€July€17,€1985,€and€noÐ `  Ðappeal€was€taken€by€either€party.12 žÝ ƒÝé$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€in€this€case€reveals€that€he€alleged€in€his€divorce€action€in€1982€that€he€hadÐ `  Ðcancer€and€his€wife€and€children€would€not€attend€to€his€needs.€Again,€on€July€23,€1987,€he€wasÐ L ì Ðwell€enough€to€have€his€deposition€taken€for€the€case€in€the€United€States€District€Court€EasternÐ 8 Ø ÐDivision,€òòIn€re€United€States€of€America€v.€Dwight€W.€Ogle,€Bonnie€A.€Brown,€Robert€T.Ð $ Ä ÐNewman,€and€Diana€G.€Brownóó,€Docket€Number€CR„3„86„16.€€He€vigorously€participated€in€bothÐ  ° Ðactions. ÔÝ ƒÝé$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAs€already€noted€the€claim€was€filed€on€December€8,€1965€and€the€hearing€was€held€onÐ `  ÐMay€8,€1973. ¸Ý ƒÝé$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔPlaintiff€was€substituted€for€Defendant€in€the€courtððs€memorandum€dated€July€18,€1995. ¤Ý ƒÝé$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔArlieÔ_Ô€Ogle€died€on€December€28,€1991.H dÝ ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRY,3Ø' LetterXà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ` °ÑÑ  ÑÔ‡¼H»XXÔÑ8€GäXXdìdÈ8ÑÑ€ ÑÑ ý ÑÔ€¼H»»¼HÔà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð àà@¦ ¦ ìàÔ#†XGäX»¼H¥#ÔÔ‡¼H»XXGäÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ `  Ðà@””$ìàAT€ò òó óÔ#†XGäX»¼Hü#ÔÔ‡¼H»XXGäÔKNOXVILLEÔ#†XGäX»¼H“#ÔÔ‡¼H»XXGäԈРr  ÐÔ#†XGäX»¼HÞ#ÔÌò òÔ% ‡ ÔÓ  ÓMACK€BROWN€v.€DWÔ%†:ÔIGòòHT€W.€óóOGLE,€ET€AL.€ó óÐ p  ÐÓGÓÌà@, , ìàò òDirectÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†ÓÔ€Appeal€from€the€Ô% ‡ ÔChancerÔ%†Ôy€Court€for€SevierÔ% ‡ Ô€Ô%† 9ÔCountyˆÐ Hè Ðà@ó ó ìàNo.€83„9„364€€W.€Dale€Young,€Judge,€Sitting€by€InterchangeˆÐ 4Ô ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<÷` A߈Ð ø˜  ÐÌà@Ò Ò ìàNo.€E1999„02513„COA„R3„CVÔ% ‡# ÔÔ%†#mÔ€„€Decided€May€10,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔˆÐ ó“  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Ê` AßÐ Ëk  Ðó óÌà  àThis€is€a€suit€wherein€the€Plaintiff€seeks€damages€by€reason€of€the€Defendants€conspiringÐ Æf  Ðto€deprive€him€of€his€rightful€share€in€assets€of€a€corporation,€Toni€Motel,€Inc.€€The€suit€was€filedÐ ²R  Ðon€September€16,€1983,€as€a€share€holderððs€derivative€suit€and€was€ultimately€dismissed€by€theÐ ž> ÐTrial€Court€under€the€doctrine€of€laches€on€the€part€of€the€Plaintiff.€€The€order€of€dismissal€wasÐ Š* Ðentered€on€January€14,€1999,€òònuncóó€òòproóó€òòtuncóó€as€of€December€14,€1998.€€The€€Plaintiff€appealsÐ v Ðcontending€laches€does€not€apply,€particularly€since€the€suit€was€timely€filed.€€We€find€the€TrialÐ b ÐCourtððs€action€was€appropriate€and€affirm€the€judgment€entered.Ð Nî ÐÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†d ÔÌÌÔ% ‡$ Ôò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€RightÔ%†$„ Ô;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€is€Affirmedó óÐ ² ÐÌòòGoddard,óó€P.J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòFranksóó€and€òòSwineyóóÔ% ‡' ÔòòóóÔ%†'n Ô,€JJ.€joined..Ð êŠ ÐÌCarl€W.€Eshbaugh€of€Knoxville€for€the€Appellant€Ð Â!b ÐÔ‡XGäXXXGäÔÌWayne€A.€Ritchie€of€Knoxville€for€the€Appellees€Ð š#: ÐÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ ^&þ! ÐÌÔ#†XGäXXXGäû #ÔÔ‡"XGäXXXGäÔÌà  àÔ#†XGäXX"XGä» #ÔÔ‡XGäXXXGäÔMack€Brown,€individually€and€on€behalf€of€Toni€Motel,€Inc.,€filed€suit€against€theÐ ")Â$ ÐDefendants,€Dwight€W.€Ogle,€Bonnie€Ogle€Brown,€Arlie€Ogle€and€Ailene€Ogle€on€September€16,Ð *® % Ð1983.€€In€his€suit€he€alleges€that€all€the€Defendants€entered€into€a€conspiracy€to€deprive€him€of€hisÐ ú*š!& Ðrightful€share€in€the€assets€of,€and€to€eliminate€his€interest€in,€the€Toni€Motel,€Inc.,€corporation.€Ð æ+†"' Ðâ âMr.€Brown€alleges€among€other€things€that€the€Defendants€eliminated€his€rightful€interest€in€theÐ Ò,r#(ý Ðmotel€by€failing€to€record€all€the€income€received€through€the€operation€of€the€motel€and€that€theÐ `  Ðmotel€paid€Arlie€and€Ailene€Ogle€monies€that€were€not€due€them.€€Ð L ì Ðâ âÌà@KK&ìàI.€€FACTSˆÐ $ Ä Ðà  àThe€motel€was€originally€established€by€Ô_ÔArlieÔ_Ô׃2×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€Ailene€Ogle,€the€parents€of€BonnieÐ  ° ÐOgle€Brown.€Mr.€Brown€was€married€to€Bonnie€Ogle€Brown.€€The€parents€gave€the€motelÐ ü œ Ðoperation€to€Bonnie€Ogle€BrownÔ#†XGäXXXGä #ÔÔ‡XGäXXXGäÔ€and€her€brother,€Dwight€Ogle,€in€the€late€1970ððs.€€The€parentsÐ èˆ Ðkept€the€real€property€and€leased€it€to€Bonnie€and€her€brother.€€On€October€1,€1980,€Bonnie€andÐ Ôt ÐDwight€transferred€all€their€partnership€interest€to€the€Toni€Motel,€Inc.,€with€the€consent€of€Mr.Ð À` ÐBrown.€€The€motel€was€then€operated€by€the€corporation.€Mr.€Brown€quit€his€job€and€beganÐ ¬L  Ðworking€full€time€at€the€motel.€At€his€insistence,€Bonnie€gave€him€ðð€of€her€stock€in€the€ToniÐ ˜8  ÐMotel€corporation.€Ô#†XGäXXXGä#ÔÐ „$  Ðà@¼¼ ìàA.€€Other€Litigation€ˆÐ p  Ðà  àOn€July€13,€1982,€Mr.€Brown€filed€a€divorce€action€against€Bonnie€Ogle€Brown,€andÐ \ü  Ðshortly€thereafter€his€employment€with€the€motel€was€terminated.€€The€relationship€between€theÐ Hè  Ðparties€was€very€tumultuous€to€say€the€least.€€€The€trial€court€granted€the€divorce€to€Mrs.€Brown.€Ð 4Ô  ÐThe€judgment€was€appealed€to€this€Court.Ô‡XGäXXXGäÔ€€We€determined€the€judgment€was€not€a€final€orderÐ  À Ðbecause€the€trial€court€had€made€no€determination€as€to€the€stock€in€the€Toni€Motel.€€On€remand,Ð  ¬ Ðthe€trial€court€determined€that€Mr.€Brown€owned€1/4€interest€or€250€shares€of€stock;€Mrs.€BrownÐ ø˜ Ðowned€1/4€interest€or€250€shares€of€stock;€and,€Dwight€Ogle€owned€ðð€interest€or€500€shares€ofÐ ä„ Ðstock€in€the€motel.€€A€final€judgment€in€the€divorce€case€was€entered€on€July€17,€1985.€€NeitherÐ Ðp Ðparty€appealed€the€July€17,€1985€judgment.Ô#†XGäXXXGäa#ÔÔ‡XGäXXXGäÔÐ ¼\ Ðà  àÔ#†XGäXXXGäç#ÔBecause€of€the€strained€relationships€between€Mr.€Brown€and€the€Ogle€family€during€theÐ ¨H Ðdivorce,€€Dwight€and€Bonnie,€who€together€owned€3/4€of€the€stock€of€the€Toni€Motel€corporationÐ ”4 Ðdecided€to€dissolve€the€corporation.€The€corporation€was€Ô_ÔdisolvedÔ_Ô€in€September€1983.€€€In€MarchÐ €  Ð1984,€Mr.€Brown€cashed€a€check€for€$41,224.74€for€his€1/4€interest€in€the€corporation.Ð l  Ðà  àOn€July€12,€1982,€€the€day€after€Mr.€Brown€filed€the€divorce€action,€he€filed€with€theÐ X!ø ÐInternal€Revenue€Service€an€application€for€Reward€for€Original€Information€against€Toni€Motel,Ð D"ä ÐInc.,€Plaza€Motel,€Inc.,€Ô_ÔArlieÔ_Ô€Ogle,€Dwight€Ogle,€Johnny€Newman,€and€Mrs.€Brown.€€Mr.€BrownÐ 0#Ð Ðreported€that€his€wife€and€other€Defendants€were€not€reporting€all€their€income€and€paying€theÐ $¼ Ðappropriate€income€tax.€€This€resulted€in€criminal€charges€being€filed€against€the€Ogles.׃|×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€TheÐ %¨ Ðcase€concluded€in€1987€with€the€acquittal€of€all€the€Defendants.Ð ô%” Ðà  àÐ à&€  Ðà@ssìàB.€€Chronology€of€This€Caseà@@ìì*ìàˆÐ `  Ðà  àThe€chronology€of€this€case€is€germane€to€disposition€of€this€matter.€€The€case€was€filedÐ L ì Ðon€September€16,€1983,€during€the€pendency€of€the€divorce€action€filed€by€Mr.€Brown.€€OnÐ 8 Ø ÐDecember€13,€1983,€the€Defendants€filed€an€answer€and€a€counterclaim€against€Mr.€Brown.€€TheÐ $ Ä ÐDefendants€did€not€raise€the€defense€of€laches€in€their€answer.€€€Ð  ° Ðà  àOn€March€4,€1986,€the€attorneys€for€the€parties€filed€a€motion€for€continuance€from€theÐ ü œ ÐMarch€6,€1986€trial€date€because€discovery€had€not€been€completed.€€In€their€motion€they€statedÐ èˆ Ðthat€critical€exhibits€were€filed€with€the€Court€of€Appeals€in€the€divorce€action€between€theÐ Ôt ÐBrowns.׃&×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€From€then€until€November€7,€1994,€this€case€was€dormant.Ð À` Ðà  àOn€November€7,€1994,€a€notice€was€sent€by€the€trial€court€that€this€matter€was€set€for€trialÐ ¬L  Ðon€the€merits€on€January€3,€1995.Ð ˜8  Ðà  àThe€trial€was€continued€at€the€insistence€of€the€plaintiffððs€counsel€to€August€28,€1995.€OnÐ „$  ÐFebruary€23,€1995,€€Mr.€Brownððs€counsel€propounded€discovery€requests€to€the€Defendants.€€OnÐ p  ÐFebruary€23,€1995,€Mr.€Brownððs€counsel€filed€an€Answer€and€Motion€to€Dismiss€the€counter„Ð \ü  Ðcomplaint€previously€filed€by€the€Defendants€in€December€1983.€Ð Hè  Ðà  àOn€June€23,€1995,€the€Defendants€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€on€the€grounds€of€laches€andÐ 4Ô  Ðon€the€following€day€they€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€based€upon€estoppel.€€In€response€to€theÐ  À ÐDefendantsðð€motion€to€dismiss€on€the€grounds€of€laches,€Mr.€Brown€cited€three€main€reasonsÐ  ¬ Ðwhy€he€should€be€excused€from€timely€prosecuting€this€matter.€€Ð ø˜ Ðà  à1.€€He€was€advised€by€his€counselÔ_Ô׃h×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€that€this€matter€should€not€be€heard€until€after€theÐ ä„ Ðdivorce€action€became€final.Ð Ðp Ðà  à2.€€He€was€advised€by€his€counsel€that€this€matter€should€not€be€heard€until€after€theÐ ¼\ Ðfederal€criminal€prosecution€was€completed.€€Ð ¨H Ðà  à3.€€He€experienced€a€variety€of€serious€health€conditions,€including€removal€of€hisÐ ”4 Ðprostate€and€removal€of€skin€cancer€during€the€late€1980ððs€and€early€1990ððs.Ð €  ÐÌà@¬ ¬ ìàII.€€THE€HOLDING€OF€THE€TRIAL€COURTˆÐ X!ø Ðà  àHearings€were€held€on€the€Motion€to€Dismiss€on€June€23€and€June€27,€1995.€€The€trialÐ D"ä Ðcourt€entered€an€order€on€August€11,€1995,€granting€the€Defendantsðð€motion€to€dismiss€withÐ 0#Ð Ðprejudice€based€on€laches.€€In€the€courtððs€memorandum€opinion€rendered€on€June€30,€1995,€theÐ $¼ Ðcourt€made€the€following€findings€of€facts.Ð %¨ Ðà8  àà ` àPlaintiff€sued€the€Defendants€almost€twelve€years€ago,€filing€suit€onÐ `  ÐSeptember€16,€1983.ÐL ìÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àDuring€the€pendency€of€this€case,€the€Plaintiff׃-×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€has€been€represented€at€allÐ 8 Ø Ðtimes€by€able€Counsel,€except€for€the€period€between€November€23,€1994€andÐ $ Ä ÐFebruary€1995.€€During€the€time€this€suit€has€been€pending,€Plaintiff€activelyÐ  ° Ðparticipated€in€and€aggressively€sought€judicial€solutions€to€his€domestic€relationsÐ ü œ Ðcase,€which€case€was€concluded€in€1985,€and€he€further€vigorously€sought€theÐ èˆ Ðcriminal€prosecution€of€his€former€wife€and€his€children€in€the€United€StatesÐ Ôt ÐDistrict€Court,€which€cases€concluded€in€acquittals€in€1987.ÐÀ`Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àPlaintiff€says€health€problems€have€kept€him€from€prosecuting€this€case,Ð ¬L  Ðand€he€says,€in€effect,€that€he€was€debilitated€between€1988€and€1990.€€During€thatÐ ˜8  Ðtime,€the€record€reflects€that€the€Defendant€was€represented€by€able€Counsel,€thatÐ „$  Ðhe€had€adequate€funds€to€pursue€the€case€at€bar€resulting€from€the€division€ofÐ p  Ðmarital€assets€and€alimony€received€by€him€from€his€former€wife€and€he€couldÐ \ü  Ðhave€authorized€and€directed€his€attorneys€and€Counselors€to€proceed€with€dueÐ Hè  Ðdiligence€his€claims€filed€in€this€case€in€1983.€€During€the€entire€pendency€of€thisÐ 4Ô  Ðsuit,€the€Court€finds€no€reasonable€and€just€cause€given€by€Plaintiff€for€havingÐ  À Ðcompletely€and€throughly€slept€on€his€rights.€€Equity€not€only€requires€clean€handsÐ  ¬ Ðand€a€pure€heart,€but€also€swift€feet€(Gibsonððs€Suits€in€Chancery,€5òòthóó€Edition.Ð ø˜ ÐVolume€1,€ðð€58,€page€74).Ðä„Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àDuring€the€almost€twelve€years€this€suit€has€been€pending,€the€death€of€oneÐ Ðp Ðof€the€Defendants,€Mr.€Arlie€Ogle,€has€occurred.€€This€death€came€some€eightÐ ¼\ Ðyears€after€Plaintiff€filed€the€instant€case€and€no€discovery€was€taken€as€to€Mr.Ð ¨H ÐOgle.€€Mr.€Ogle€would€have€been€a€substantial€and€material€witness€as€to€theÐ ”4 Ðissues€raised€in€this€case;€€Mr.€Ogle€has€taken€to€his€grave€many€salient€factsÐ €  Ðnecessary€for€a€jury€to€consider€in€rendering€justice€as€between€these€parties.Ðl Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àDuring€the€almost€twelve€years€this€suit€has€been€pending,€substantial,Ð X!ø Ðmaterial,€valuable€and€relevant€records€of€the€parties€have€been€misplaced,€lostÐ D"ä Ðand/or€destroyed€due€to€the€lack€of€diligence€on€the€part€of€the€Plaintiff€inÐ 0#Ð Ðpursuing€his€cause€of€action€raised€in€this€case.€€Some€records€were€even€turnedÐ $¼ Ðover€to€former€Counsel€for€Plaintiff€in€this€case€and€Plaintiff€has€not,€of€record,Ð %¨ Ðmade€any€effort€of€any€kind€or€character€whatsoever€to€ascertain€whether€theseÐ ô%” Ðrecords€still€exist.€€During€the€almost€twelve€years€this€suit€has€been€pending,Ð à&€  ÐPlaintiff€has€failed€and€refused€to€pursue€any€discovery€in€this€case€until€the€lastÐ Ì'l! Ðcouple€of€months.€€As€a€direct€and€proximate€result€of€this€neglect,€memories€haveÐ ¸(X" Ðdulled€and€many€details€of€the€questioned€transactions€have€been€lost€forever.Ф)D #Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àBecause€of€Plaintiffððs€negligent€lack€of€any€interest€in€prosecuting€his€case,Ð `  Ðthe€Defendants€have€been€irreparably€prejudiced:€€(1)€€one€of€their€materialÐ L ì Ðwitnesses€is€now€deceased,€(2)€€important€and€relevant€documents€have€beenÐ 8 Ø Ðmisplaced,€lost€and/or€destroyed€and€(3)€none€of€the€parties,€including€theÐ $ Ä ÐPlaintiff,€can€now€remember€many€salient€and€relevant€details€necessary€toÐ  ° Ðestablish€the€facts€for€a€juryððs€consideration€in€this€case.Ðü œÐ Ð  Ðà  àThe€Plaintiff€filed€a€Motion€to€Alter€or€Amend€the€order€entered€on€August€11,€1995.€Ð èˆ ÐOne€of€the€issues€in€the€motion€was€that€the€Defendantsðð€counterclaim€has€not€been€dismissed.€Ð Ôt ÐMore€than€three€years€later,€the€trial€court€denied€the€motion,€noting€that€ð ðits€Order€of€August€11,Ð À` Ð1995€dismissed€this€cause€in€its€entirety;ðð€accordingly,€said€Order€dismissed€all€claims€andÐ ¬L  Ðcauses€of€action€of€all€parties€ð!ð€both€the€Plaintiff€and€the€Defendants.€€This€order€was€entered€onÐ ˜8  ÐJanuary€14,€1999,€òònuncóó€òòproóó€òòtuncóó€to€December€14,€1998.€€This€appeal€then€followed.Ð „$  ÐÌà@øø$ìàIII.€€ISSUESˆÐ \ü  ÐÔ& ° Ôà  àThe€appellant€brings€the€following€issues€to€us:Ð Hè  ÐÓ€ (#33ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£È?ÝÔ2#ÔÚ  Ú1Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝThe€trial€courtððs€order€dismissing€this€cause€of€action€on€the€basis€of€laches€must€beÐ 4Ô  Ðreversed€because€the€failure€of€the€Defendants€to€raise€the€issue€in€their€responsiveÐ  À Ðpleading€rendered€the€defense€waived€under€the€law.Ô'°Hê>Ô݃3£È?õ?݌Р¬(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£¯AÝÔ2#ÔÚ  Ú2Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝEven€absent€the€deficient€pleadings€of€the€Defendants,€the€doctrine€of€laches€does€notÐ ø˜ Ðapply€to€delays€during€the€pendency€of€a€civil€lawsuit€such€as€the€case€at€bar.݃3£¯AÜAÝŒÐä„(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£2CÝÔ2#ÔÚ  Ú3Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝEven€if€this€court€were€to€hold€that€the€Defendantsðð€pleadings€are€not€deficient€and€thatÐ Ðp Ðthe€doctrine€of€laches€in€Tennessee€can€apply€to€post„filing€delays,€this€is€not€a€properÐ ¼\ Ðcase€for€the€application€of€the€laches€doctrine.݃3£2C_C݌ШH(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà@  ìàIV.€€LAW,€DISCUSSION€AND€DECISIONˆÐ €  Ðà  àOur€standard€of€review€on€appeal€from€a€trial€court's€grant€of€a€motion€to€dismiss€is€òòdeÐ l  Ðnovoóó,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness€as€to€the€trial€court's€legal€conclusions,€and€allÐ X!ø Ðallegations€of€fact€in€the€complaint€below€are€taken€as€true.€€òòStein€v.€Davidson€Hotel€Co.óó,€945Ð D"ä ÐS.W.2d€714,€716€(Tenn.€1997).€€In€this€matter,€there€is€no€dispute€concerning€the€facts€material€toÐ 0#Ð Ðthe€trial€court's€holding.€€Ð $¼ Ðà  àð ðEquity€aids€the€vigilant,€not€those€who€sleep€upon€their€rights.ðð€€William€H.€Inman,Ð %¨ ÐòòGibsonððs€Suits€in€Chancery,óó€ðð€93,€p.€89€(7òòthóó€ed.€1988).€€Ð ô%” Ðà  àThe€defense€of€laches€is€based€on€the€doctrine€of€equitable€estoppel,€and€is€only€appliedÐ à&€  Ðwhere€the€party€invoking€it€has€been€prejudiced€by€the€delay.€€òòFreeman€v.€Martin€Ô_ÔRobowashÔ_Ô,€Inc.,óóÐ Ì'l! Ð61€Tenn.€App.€677,€457€S.W.2d€606,€611€(1970).€€€The€defense€of€laches€presents€a€mixedÐ ¸(X" Ðquestion€of€law€and€fact.€€Two€essential€elements€of€fact€are€negligence€and€Ô_ÔunexcusedÔ_Ô€delay€onÐ ¤)D # Ðthe€part€of€the€complainant€in€asserting€his€alleged€claim,€which€result€in€injury€to€the€partyÐ *0!$ Ðpleading€laches.€€òòÔ_ÔSunderhausÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔPerelÔ_Ô€&€Lowensteinóó,€€215€Tenn.€619,€388€S.W.2d€140€(1965).€Ð |+"% ÐThe€question€whether€in€view€of€the€established€facts,€relief€is€to€be€denied--that€is,€whether,€itÐ `  Ðwould€be€inequitable€or€unjust€to€the€defendant€to€enforce€the€complainants'€right--is€a€questionÐ L ì Ðof€law.€€òòFreeman€v.€Martin€Ô_ÔRobowashÔ_Ô,€Inc.,óó€457€S.W.2d€òò€óóat€611;€€òòJansen€v.€Claytonóó,€816€S.W.2dÐ 8 Ø Ð49,€51€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€Ð $ Ä Ðà  àIn€the€cases€applying€the€defense€of€laches,€the€courts€frequently€cite€the€death€ofÐ  ° Ðwitnesses€or€the€loss€of€evidence€as€the€sort€of€prejudice€that,€coupled€with€an€unreasonableÐ ü œ Ðdelay,€amount€to€laches.€òòJansen€v.€Claytonóó,€816€S.W.2d€€at€52;€€òòBaker€v.€Bakeróó,€24€Tenn.€App.Ð èˆ Ð220,€142€S.W.2d€737€(1940);€€òòCarpenter€v.€Wrightóó,€158€Tenn.€289,€13€S.W.2d€51€(1929);€€òòEvansÐ Ôt Ðv.€Steeleóó,€125€Tenn.€483,€145€S.W.€162€(1912).Ð À` Ðà  àTennessee€courts€have€stated€the€doctrine€of€laches€as€follows:Ð ¬L  Ðà8  àRelief€is€generally€refused€by€courts€of€equity,€because€of€lapse€of€time,€only€inÐ ˜8  Ðsuch€cases€where€the€loss€of€evidence,€death€of€witnesses€or€parties,€and€failure€ofÐ „$  Ðmemory€resulting€in€the€obscuration€of€facts€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant,Ð p  Ðrender€uncertain€the€ascertainment€of€truth,€and€make€it€impossible€for€the€court€toÐ \ü  Ðpronounce€a€decree€with€confidence.€.€.The€doctrine€of€laches.€.€.is€not€an€arbitraryÐ Hè  Ðor€technical€doctrine.€€No€hard€and€fast€rule€for€its€application€can€be€formulated.Ð4Ô Ð Ð  ÐòòEvans€v.€Steeleóó,€145€S.W.€at€165.€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòAmerican€National€Insurance€Co.€v.€McPhetridgeóó,€28Ð  À ÐTenn.€App.€145,€187€S.W.2d€640,€òòcert.€deniedóó€(Tenn.1945)Ð  ¬ Ðà  àMoreover,€the€application€of€the€doctrine€in€the€first€instance€lies€within€the€discretion€ofÐ ø˜ Ðthe€trial€court€and€it€will€not€be€reversed€except€upon€a€showing€of€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòJohnÐ ä„ ÐP.€Saad€&€Sons,€Inc.€v.€Nashville€Thermal€Transfer€Corp.óó,€715€S.W.2d€41,€46€(Tenn.€1986);€Ð Ðp ÐòòHannewald€v.€Fairfield€Communities,€Inc.óó,€651€S.W.2d€222,€228€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.),€òòcert.€deniedóóÐ ¼\ Ð(Tenn.1983).€€€Such€application€"depends€upon€the€equities€at€stake€in€each€individual€case,€andÐ ¨H Ðin€the€present€suit,€we€feel€that€the€practical€realities€of€the€situation€allow€its€application."€€€òòJohnÐ ”4 ÐP.€Saad€&€Sons,€Inc.€v.€Nashville€Thermal€Transfer€Corp.óó,€715€S.W.2d€at€46.€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€exÐ €  Ðrel.€Wilson€v.€Maysóó,€190€Tenn.€156,€162,€228€S.W.2d€97,€100€(Tenn.1950).€€Ð l  Ðà8  àEquity€never€interferes€in€behalf€of€a€party€whose€negligence,€or€delay,€hasÐ X!ø Ðcaused,€occasioned,€or€contributed€to,€the€injury€of€which€he€complains.€€No€oneÐ D"ä Ðcan€take€advantage€of€his€own€wrong;€and€when€one€of€two€persons€must€suffer€aÐ 0#Ð Ðloss,€that€one€shall€suffer€it€whose€act,€or€neglect,€occasioned€it.€€Clean€hands,€aÐ $¼ Ðpure€heart€and€swift€feet€are€required€of€him€who€seeks€the€aid€of€a€Court€ofÐ %¨ ÐConscience.€€If,€in€any€case,€if€(sic)€appears€that€the€injury€complained€of€mightÐ ô%” Ðnot€have€happened€had€the€plaintiff,€or€his€agents,€or€attorneys,€been€duly€diligent,Ð à&€  Ðthe€Court€will€stay€its€hand€and€decline€to€interfere.ÐÌ'l!Ð Ð  ÐWilliam€H.€Inman,€òòGibson's€Suits€in€Chanceryóó,€ðð€94,€p.€90€(7th€ed.€1988).Ð ¸(X" Ðà  àLaches€requires€that€the€delay€be€inexcusable.€€To€defend€against€a€charge€of€laches,€aÐ ¤)D # Ðparty€should€assert€sufficient€reasons€accounting€for€the€delay€to€the€satisfaction€of€the€trial€court.€Ð *0!$ ÐMr.€Brown€gives€the€following€reasons€excusing€the€delay€in€prosecuting€this€action:Ð |+"% Ðà  à1.€€He€was€advised€by€his€counsel׃×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€that€this€matter€should€not€be€heard€until€after€theÐ `  Ðdivorce€action€became€final;Ð L ì Ðà  à2.€He€was€advised€by€his€counsel€that€this€matter€should€not€be€heard€until€after€a€pendingÐ 8 Ø Ðfederal€criminal€prosecution€of€the€corporation€was€completed.׃%T×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€ended€in€1987€with€theÐ $ Ä Ðacquittal€of€all€the€Defendants.€Ð  ° Ðà  à3.€€He€experienced€a€variety€of€serious€health€conditions,€including€removal€of€hisÐ ü œ Ðprostate€and€removal€of€skin€cancer€during€the€late€1980ððs€and€early€1990ððs.׃)à×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ð èˆ Ðà  àOther€than€his€poor€health,€the€only€reasons€Mr.€Brown€gave€for€his€delay€in€prosecutingÐ Ôt Ðthis€action€were€€tactical€ones.€€€Under€the€facts€of€this€case,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€Ð À` ÐMr.€Brown€was€not€diligent€in€prosecuting€this€matter.€€The€question€of€diligence€is€one€alwaysÐ ¬L  Ðdependent€on€the€facts€and€circumstances€in€each€particular€instance.€€In€this€matter,€Mr.€BrownÐ ˜8  Ðdid€not€assert€sufficient€reasons€accounting€for€the€delay€to€the€satisfaction€of€the€trial€court.€òòSeeóóÐ „$  ÐòòÔ_ÔRutledgeÔ_Ô€v.€Swindleóó,€48€Tenn.€App.€482,€348€S.W.2d€888€(1960).€€Neither€has€he€demonstratedÐ p  Ðadequate€reasons€for€his€delay€to€us.Ð \ü  Ðà8  àð ðThere€is€no€hard€and€fast€rule€by€which€to€determine€whether€laches€has€barredÐ Hè  Ðthe€remedy,€but€each€case€must€depend€upon€its€own€peculiar€facts.€What€periodÐ 4Ô  Ðwill€constitute€ð ða€reasonable€timeðð€within€the€meaning€of€the€rule€laid€down,€is€aÐ  À Ðquestion€for€the€judicial€discretion€of€the€court€in€most€cases,€and€its€exercise€ofÐ  ¬ Ðthat€discretion€will€not€be€revised,€if€not€abused;€but€no€unreasonable€diligenceÐ ø˜ Ðwill€be€required.€Ðä„Ð Ð  ÐòòÔ_ÔRutledgeÔ_Ô€v.€Swindleóó,€48€Tenn.€App.€482,€348€S.W.2d€888,€893€(1960).€Ð Ðp Ðà  àà ` àAdditionally,€Mr.€Brown€claims€that€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€ProcedureÐ ¼\ Ðrequire€a€party€to€"set€forth€affirmatively€facts€in€short€and€plain€terms€relied€upon€to€constituteÐ ¨H Ð[avoidances€and€affirmative€defenses]."€Rule€8.03,€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€€€A€party€may€be€deemed€toÐ `  Ðhave€waived€any€defense€(with€some€exceptions€not€relevant€here)€that€he€does€not€present€byÐ L ì Ðpleadings€or€motions.€Rule€12.08,€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€€òòRichardson€v.€Richardsonóó,€969€S.W.2d€931Ð 8 Ø Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€We€do€not€find€Mr.€Brownððs€averment€that€the€Defendants€should€haveÐ $ Ä Ðalleged€laches€in€their€answer€shortly€after€this€suit€was€filed€in€1983€to€be€well€taken.€€They€hadÐ  ° Ðno€way€of€knowing€at€that€time€that€Mr.€Brown€would€be€dilatory€in€prosecuting€this€suit.€€TheyÐ ü œ Ðhad€no€way€of€knowing€that€Ô_ÔArlieÔ_Ô€Ogle€would€die€eight€years€later€and€that€no€preservationÐ èˆ Ðwould€be€made€of€his€evidence.€€They€had€no€way€of€knowing€€various€records,€which€were€usedÐ Ôt Ðin€two€separate€legal€actions€instituted€by€Mr.€Brown,€would€be€lost€or€destroyed.€€It€is€only€afterÐ À` Ðthe€years€passed€that€the€Defendants€realized€that€the€doctrine€of€laches€would€be€applicable€toÐ ¬L  Ðthis€matter.€At€that€point,€the€Defendants€acted,€setting€forth€their€claim€of€laches€in€a€motionÐ ˜8  Ðafter€a€twelve€year€delay€in€prosecuting€this€matter.Ð „$  Ðà  àFinally,€Mr.€Brown€contends€that€Tennessee€law€does€not€recognize€the€basis€for€a€delayÐ p  Ðafter€bringing€suit€under€the€Doctrine€of€Laches.€€€He€claims€that€Tennessee€law€only€recognizesÐ \ü  Ðthe€Doctrine€of€Laches€in€the€filing€of€a€suit.€€We€disagree.€€A€case€in€point€is€òòIn€Re:€Estate€ofÐ Hè  ÐDarwinóó,€503€S.W.2d€511€(Tenn.€1973),€in€which€our€Supreme€Court,€òòÔ_ÔsuaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔsponteÔ_Ôóó,€remanded€aÐ 4Ô  Ðcase€to€the€trial€court€for€a€determination€of€any€prejudice€resulting€to€the€defendant€by€the€delay.€Ð  À ÐIn€òòDarwinóó,€G.€B.€Hillis,€principal,€and€Charles€B.€Darwin,€one€of€three€sureties,€executed€a€bondÐ  ¬ Ðin€accordance€with€T.C.A.€ðð€€57-309€to€the€Commissioner€of€Revenue€to€cover€taxes€accruingÐ ø˜ Ðfrom€the€wholesaling€of€beer,€ale,€and€other€malt€beverages.€€The€bond€was€executed€on€OctoberÐ ä„ Ð19,€1963€and€provided€that€an€action€could€be€maintained€on€the€bond€against€any€one€or€all€ofÐ Ðp Ðthe€sureties€without€making€the€principal€a€party€since€all€were€jointly€and€severally€liable.€Ð ¼\ ÐCharles€Darwin€subsequently€died€on€February€6,€1964€and€publication€of€a€notice€to€creditorsÐ ¨H Ðwas€instituted€on€February€19,€1964.€€On€December€8,€1965,€the€Commissioner€of€Revenue€filedÐ ”4 Ða€claim€against€Charles€B.€Darwin's€estate€with€regard€to€the€€bond€in€the€amount€of€$2,871.87.€Ð €  ÐExecutors€of€Darwin's€estate€contended€that€the€claim€was€not€filed€within€the€nine€monthsÐ l  Ðstatute€of€limitations€as€outlined€in€T.C.A.€€30-513;€therefore€they€took€exception€to€it.€€€On€MayÐ X!ø Ð8,€1973,€the€Probate€Court€heard€the€issue€and€held€that€the€claim€was€for€a€debt€arising€under€aÐ D"ä Ðcontract€rather€than€for€taxes;€therefore€T.C.A.€ðð€30-513€barred€the€claim€as€it€was€filedÐ 0#Ð Ðsubsequent€to€the€expiration€of€the€nine€months€limitation.€€Ð $¼ Ðà  àThe€issue€before€the€appeals€court€was€whether€T.C.A.€€ðð€30€-513€barred€the€State's€claimÐ %¨ Ðor€whether€another€statute€of€limitations€was€applicable.€€€The€court€ascertained€that€the€claimÐ ô%” Ðwas€that€of€a€€tax€as€between€the€State€and€the€Principal,€C.€B.€Hillis,€and€that€€T.C.A.ðð€67-1323Ð à&€  Ðwas€the€appropriate€statute€of€limitation€applicable€to€the€situation.€€Applying€that€section€to€theÐ Ì'l! Ðfacts€of€the€case,€€the€court€found€it€to€be€clear€that€the€six€year€statute€of€limitations€would€notÐ ¸(X" Ðbar€the€State's€claim€because€the€claim€suit€was€filed€within€six€years€from€the€date€the€taxesÐ ¤)D # Ðâ âbecame€delinquent.Ð *0!$ Ðà  àThe€òòDarwinóó€court,€òòÔ_ÔsuaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔsponteÔ_Ô,óó€addressed€the€question€of€whether€the€State€was€equitablyÐ `  Ðâ âestopped€from€collecting€from€Darwin's€estate€because€of€laches€and€remanded€the€case€to€theÐ L ì Ðlower€court€for€a€determination€as€to€whether€all€the€requirements€of€laches€were€present.€€InÐ 8 Ø Ðdoing€so,€the€court€said:Ð $ Ä Ðà8  àà ` àThis€Court€has€consistently€held€that€laches€may€be€invoked€only€whenÐ  ° Ðthere€is€negligence€on€one€side€resulting€in€injury€therefrom€on€the€other.€€òòSeeóó,Ð ü œ ÐòòSamuel€v.€Kingóó,€€158€Tenn.€546,€14€S.W.2d€963€(1928);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔMcPhailÔ_Ôóó,€€156Ð èˆ ÐTenn.€459,€2€S.W.2d€€413€(1916);€òòEvans€v.€Steeleóó,€€125€Tenn.€483,€495,€145€S.W.Ð Ôt Ð162€(1911).€€Moreover,€mere€delay€is€insufficient€to€raise€the€doctrine€of€laches.€Ð À` ÐBut,€in€òòNicholson€v.€Holtóó,€€174€Tenn.€358,€366,€125€S.W.2d€483,€486€(1939),€thisÐ ¬L  ÐCourt€indicated€that:И8 Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àð ðThe€doctrine€of€laches€.€.€.€is€not€an€arbitrary€or€technical€doctrine.€€WhereÐ „$  Ðit€would€be€practically€unjust€to€give€a€remedy,€either€because€the€party€has,€by€hisÐ p  Ðconduct,€done€that€which€might€fairly€be€regarded€as€equivalent€to€a€waiver€of€it,Ð \ü  Ðor€where,€by€his€conduct€and€neglect,€he€has,€perhaps,€not€waiving€that€remedy,Ð Hè  Ðyet€put€the€other€party€in€a€situation€in€which€it€would€not€be€reasonable€to€placeÐ 4Ô  Ðhim€if€the€remedy€were€afterward€to€be€asserted,€in€either€of€these€cases,€lapse€ofÐ  À Ðtime€is€most€material.ðð€Ð ¬Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àThis€Court€continues€to€adhere€to€these€equitable€principles.Ð ø˜ Ðà8  àà ` àIn€the€instant€case,€however,€the€facts€are€insufficient€to€allow€an€accurateÐ ä„ Ðdetermination€of€whether€to€apply€these€principles.€€It€results€therefore,€that€thisÐ Ðp Ðissue€must€be€remanded€to€the€Probate€Court€to€determine€whether€the€nearlyÐ ¼\ Ðeight€year€delay׃*×Ý ƒ!#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€was€caused€by€the€State€and€whether€Darwin's€estate€was€injuredÐ ¨H Ðor€placed€in€an€unreasonable€position€by€the€delay.Д4Ð Ð  ÐòòDarwinóó,€503€S.W.2d€€at€514.€€Ð €  Ðà  àAnother€case€by€our€Supreme€Court€supporting€that€a€case€may€be€dismissed€based€uponÐ l  Ðlaches€in€the€prosecution€of€the€suit,€not€just€in€the€filing€of€the€suit,€€is€òòState€v.€Pattersonóó,€155Ð X!ø ÐTenn.€169,€€290€S.W.€973€(Tenn.€1927).€€The€Supreme€Court€stated€in€that€case€€Ð D"ä Ðà8  àà ` àThat€a€bill€in€chancery€may€be,€as€a€matter€of€practice,€dismissed€uponÐ 0#Ð Ðmotion€for€laches€in€the€prosecution€of€the€suit€is€distinctly€recognized€in€òòÔ_ÔCowanÔ_Ô,Ð $¼ ÐÔ_ÔMcClungÔ_Ô€&€Co.€v.€Donaldsonóó,€95€Tenn.€322,€32€S.W.€457,€and€òòCollins€v.Ð %¨ ÐInsurance€Co.óó,€91€Tenn.€432,€19€S.Ô% €4 ÔW.€525.Ðô%”Ð Ð  ÐòòState€v.€Pattersonóó,€290€S.W.€at€975.€Ð à&€  Ðà  àMoreover,€we€find€that€this€is€a€proper€case€for€the€application€of€the€laches€doctrine.€€AÐ Ì'l! Ðmore€classic€case€cannot€be€imagined.€The€lengthy€unreasonable€delay€by€Mr.€Brown€coupledÐ ¸(X" Ðwith€the€prejudice€to€the€Defendants,€one€of€whom€died€eight€years€after€the€instigation€of€thisÐ `  Ðsuit,€the€loss€of€documents,€and€the€lack€of€memory€of€the€parties€to€pertinent€facts€relating€toÐ L ì Ðtheir€defense,€all€confirm€that€the€criteria€for€dismissal€based€on€laches€was€more€than€Ô_ÔamptlyÔ_ÔÐ 8 Ø Ðmet€in€this€case.€€We€find€the€Chancery€Court€exercised€its€discretion€appropriately€€in€grantingÐ $ Ä Ðthe€motion€to€dismiss€for€laches€in€the€prosecution€of€this€case.€€We€find€no€merit€in€any€issuesÐ  ° Ðraised€by€Mr.€Brown.Ð ü œ ÐÌà@ÙÙ#ìàV.€€CONCLUSIONˆÐ Ôt Ðà  àThe€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€all€respects.€This€matter€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€forÐ À` Ðsuch€further€proceedings€as€may€be€necessary€consistent€with€this€opinion€and€collection€of€costsÐ ¬L  Ðbelow.€Costs€on€appeal€are€adjudged€against€Mr.€Brown€and€his€surety.Ð ˜8  ÐÌ€