ÿWPC§ ‹Y¤ÞfìTÀ?-a°±*ª^À=- ºÈ~x™2y€qcŠÞz숻ú!wП3èT$41;¡•ÙWˆM˜—9WŠé*ÁÓ'î/Ÿ†‚GvyA½ö²L¤ùàíË´d4HÎiØ…Ý „ÖÛ‰Šé2Õe:Bjÿ7$ÔúìJSäž§)«]6yC?$•ÙÖìâ¾N_‘]FdDtô¼@qÖyVSKòUóôóéi±#ìID/Ë"ÕZÁg '€¹7Îa["ç‹)»É*S‚î*Æg2æ ­®"ˈ ª ¹‹úŸÀ_,U`õñOl2l(Eåã¼xó˜A¸^÷B|Þ Ç°±Wê }¤|ŽHú§ JJ()s´]Áyµ]‡º,/iPÅ %Íᨠ`Ü!ÛŒª8,=ª’Ï´´9'¨V“žþŠôª}·>W*ß5J0X_ȆÆÑ ‹°±ô¼ç}ò.€è+¨–$å³CjÄ!Xáž·mwZш.žhó'»RNtÈÒ6qs ²RGaº¿¥°+©RŸ‡D:cÆ`ùZF´ÁWzõGW1tÛ?Þk_NуDÉ\}ŸûŒS| ³ ÁóôvJÆÝÂ…½oºçÏm’€ÿ×(ÁRsÚa b#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 w¿ UNà 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ ©™ ÆBÆÆÎÆ” 0DZNžž E¶Ø¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸b ˜˜˜˜ 0뤤¤¤ B 0¤¬ D3P D-ƒ 0K°° ASûÆN 0¤ 0D¸ A«ü˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»{G1Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularéJE1ê:i¢×+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt"|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ŸÝ ƒR¨$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô-Iò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTenn.€Ct.€App.€R.€10€provides:€Ð À ÐÌà8  àThe€Court,€with€the€concurrence€of€all€judges€participating€in€the€case,€may€affirm,€reverse€or€modifyÐ Hˆ Ðthe€actions€of€the€trial€court€by€memorandum€opinion€when€a€formal€opinion€would€have€noÐ  L Ðprecedential€value.€When€a€case€is€decided€by€memorandum€opinion,€it€shall€be€designatedÐ Ð Ð"MEMORANDUM€OPINION,"€shall€not€be€published,€and€shall€not€be€cited€or€relied€on€for€anyÐ ”Ô Ðreason€in€any€unrelated€case.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ñ X Ñ  P.J.GasawayFincherCookevilleClouseBeesleyCrossville L.B.ClousesresurveyedKendrickShoemakeServs COAStovallBagsbyWarmathPritchardRebori S.W.WillifordWhicherpretermitted- ù- Ý ƒR¨$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô-Iò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAdverse€possession€of€real€estate€is€a€possession€thereof€inconsistent€with€the€right€of€the€true€owner,€and€whenÐ À Ðsuch€possession€is€accompanied€by€certain€acts€and€circumstances,€the€title€will€vest€in€the€possessor.€€€òòMichael€v..€Ô_ÔJakesÔ_Ôóó,Ð „Ä ÐNo.€M1999„02257„COA„R3„CV,€2002€WL€1484448€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.,€July€12,€2002)€(Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€applicationÐ Hˆ Ðdenied€Dec.€2,€2002).€If€Mr.€Ô_ÔWhicherÔ_Ô€is€the€ð ðtrue€ownerðð€owner€of€the€disputed€strip,€then€there€is€no€need€for€his€adverseÐ  L Ðpossession€claim.(|G2¨$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€• »»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô-Iò»»Ô d(|3Ñc$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€• »»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ñc$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€• »»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€• »»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑÀ°ÑÑH°ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼• »»»ÔÑ8€ÒXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÑ€/VÑà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î“À• ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ À Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼• »îî“À9#ԈРæ& ÐÓ  ÓAugust€5,€2002€SessionÐ  L ÐÌò òTRUMAN€CLOUSE,€òòet€al.óó€v.€MARC€FLOYD€WHICHERÔ‡XÒX»¼• Ôó óÐ 0p ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€White€CountyÐ 0 p Ðà@@øøìàNo.€9250€€€€€€Vernon€Neal,€ChancellorÐ  \ ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<ó ` AßÐ ô 4  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„02745„COA„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€7,€2004ó óÔ#†¼• »XXÒU#ÔÔ‡XÒX»¼• Ôò ò€Ð ï /  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Æ` AßÐ Ç  ÐÔ#†¼• »XXÒ#Ôó óÌÓ  ÓÔ€XÒX»¼• ÔThis€appeal€involves€a€boundary€dispute€between€neighboring€landowners€over€a€strip€of€landÐ è(  Ðbetween€six€and€nine€feet€wide.€€The€parties€submitted€conflicting€surveys€in€support€of€theirÐ Ô Ðrespective€claims€to€the€disputed€strip,€but€both€agree€the€original€subdivision€plat€is€flawed.€€InÐ À Ðaddition,€the€defendant€claims€title€to€the€disputed€strip€based€on€adverse€possession.€€The€trial€courtÐ ¬ì Ðset€the€boundary€line€in€accordance€with€the€defendantððs€expertððs€survey€and€the€plaintiffs€appealed.€òòóóÐ ˜Ø ÐWe€affirm.Ð „Ä ÐÓ»ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmedó óÐ \œ ÐÌÓ  ÓòòBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.,€William€B.€Cain,€Jóó.,€and€òòJohn€H.€Gasaway,€III,€Sp.€J.,óó€delivered€theÐ 4t Ðopinion€of€the€court.Ð  ` ÐÌHenry€D.€Fincher,€Cookeville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Truman€Clouse€and€Sue€Clouse.Ð ø8 ÐÌTom€Beesley,€Crossville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Marc€Floyd€Whicher.Ð Ð ÐÓàÓÌò òMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó ó׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¨è ÐÌòòóóÓ  Óà@¬¬)ìàò òI.ó óˆÐ €!À! ÐÌà  àOn€May€26,€1987,€Marc€Floyd€Whicher€purchased€Lot€79€in€the€Thousand€Oaks€ResortÐ X#˜# ÐSubdivision€in€White€County,€Tennessee.€€Mr.€Whicherððs€deed€describes€the€property€only€byÐ D$„ $ Ðreference€to€the€original€plat€of€the€subdivision€produced€in€1968€by€surveyor€L.B.€Petty.€€The€PettyÐ 0%p!% ÐPlat€shows€that€lot€79€has€one€hundred€feet€of€road€frontage.€€Ð &\"& Ðâ âÐ 'H#'ýj Ðà  àImmediately€after€purchasing€lot€79,€Mr.€Whicher€hired€Walter€Deal,€a€licenced€surveyor,Ð À Ðâ âto€survey€the€lot.€€Mr.€Dealððs€survey€shows€Lot€79€as€having€one€hundred€feet€of€road€€frontage€andÐ ¬ì Ðshows€an€electric€pole€as€the€boundary€between€Lot€79€and€Lot€78.€€Mr.€Whicher€subsequently€builtÐ ˜Ø Ða€house€centered€within€the€boundary€lines€shown€by€the€Deal€survey.€€Mr.€Whicher€did€not€live€inÐ „Ä Ðthe€house,€but€allowed€his€mother€to€live€there€for€several€years.€€The€lot€was€not€cleared€all€the€wayÐ p° Ðto€the€lines€shown€on€the€deal€survey€and€a€portion€of€the€disputed€strip€was€covered€with€trees€andÐ \œ Ðunderbrush€until€1998.€€No€fence€was€erected€until€1999.€Ð H ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiffs,€Truman€and€Sue€Clouse,€bought€Lots€77€and€78€in€1997.€€Like€Mr.€WhicherððsÐ  ` Ðlot€79,€Lot€78€is€shown€on€the€Petty€Plat€as€having€one€hundred€feet€of€road€frontage.€€The€Clousesðð€Ð  L  Ðdispute€with€Mr.€Whicher€began€in€1998,€when€the€Clouses€began€clearing€their€lots,€including€aÐ ø 8  Ðportion€of€the€disputed€strip,€using€a€bulldozer.€€Mr.€Whicher€alleges€the€original€boundary€markersÐ ä $  Ðwere€destroyed€at€this€time.€€In€response,€Mr.€Whicher€began€constructing€a€fence€just€inside€the€lineÐ Ð  Ðset€by€the€Deal€survey.€€The€Clouses€then€filed€this€suit€to€stop€construction€of€the€fence€andÐ ¼ü  Ðdetermine€the€boundary€line.Ð ¨è  ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€Mr.€Whicher€presented€the€testimony€of€William€S.€Williford,€a€licenced€surveyorÐ €À Ðand€former€employee€of€Mr.€Deal.€€Mr.€Williford€resurveyed€Lot€79€by€retracing€Mr.€Dealððs€survey€Ð l¬ Ðand€again€used€the€electric€pole€as€the€northeast€corner€of€Lot€79.€€Mr.€Willifordððs€survey€shows€100'Ð X˜ Ðof€road€frontage€for€both€lots€78€and€79,€although€Mr.€Williford€did€not€measure€the€actual€frontageÐ D„ Ðfor€lot€78.€Ð 0p ÐÌà  à€The€Clouses€presented€the€testimony€of€their€own€licenced€surveyor,€Darrell€Johns.€€Mr.Ð H ÐJohns,€with€the€aid€of€a€metal€detector,€found€several€3/4"€thick€walled€iron€pipes€that€Mr.€Deal€andÐ ô4 ÐMr.€Williford€had€not€found.€€Mr.€Johns€determined€these€pipes€were€the€original€monuments€set€outÐ à  Ðby€Mr.€Petty€in€1968.€€Four€of€them€he€concluded€marked€the€outside€corners€of€lots€78€and€79.€€€HeÐ Ì  Ðwas€not,€however,€able€to€find€any€3/4"€thick€walled€pipe€showing€the€line€between€lots€78€and€79.€Ð ¸ø ÐÌà  àThe€outside€corners€of€Lots€78€and€79€set€by€Mr.€Johns€were€slightly€different€from€those€setÐ Ð Ðby€Mr.€Williford.€€In€addition,€Mr.€Johns€determined€that€there€was€a€discrepancy€between€theÐ |¼ Ðdistances€on€the€Petty€plat€and€those€on€the€ground.€€He€determined€that€there€was€only€196.54€feetÐ h¨ Ðbetween€the€outside€northern€corners€of€lots€78€and€79€rather€than€the€200ft€shown€on€the€Petty€plat.€Ð T ” ÐHe€then€set€the€line€between€lots€78€and€79€by€apportioning€the€3.46€feet€of€shortfall€between€the€twoÐ @!€  Ðlots.€€Ð ,"l! ÐÌà  àIn€addition€to€asserting€that€Mr.€Willifordððs€survey€accurately€depicts€the€partiesðð€commonÐ $D # Ðboundary,€Mr.€Whicher€claimed€that€he€is€entitled€to€the€disputed€strip€based€on€the€doctrine€ofÐ ð$0!$ Ðadverse€possession.€€In€support€of€his€claim,€he€testified€that€he€put€septic€lines€on€part€of€theÐ Ü%"% Ðdisputed€strip€ten€years€earlier€and€had€mowed€the€strip€three€to€five€time€per€year.€€Ð È&#& ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€determined€that€the€boundary€between€lot€78€and€lot€79€should€be€set€inÐ  (à$( Ðaccordance€with€the€Williford€Survey.€€The€Clouses€filed€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€or,€in€theÐ Œ)Ì%) Ðalternative,€for€a€new€trial€requesting€in€part€that€the€trial€court€grant€a€new€trial€to€consider€theÐ x*¸&* Ðtestimony€of€additional€witnesses€to€refute€Mr.€Whicherððs€claim€of€adverse€possession.€€The€trialÐ d+¤'+ Ðcourt€denied€the€motion,€and€the€Clouses€filed€a€timely€notice€of€appeal€to€this€court.Ð P,(, ÐÐ <-|)- Ðà@……)ìàò òII.ó óˆÐ À ÐÌà  àThe€Clouses€raise€six€issues€on€appeal.€Two€issues€concern€the€actual€location€of€the€partiesððÐ ˜Ø Ðboundary€lines€pursuant€to€their€deeds€and€which€of€the€two€competing€surveys€accurately€depictsÐ „Ä Ðthat€line:€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€applying€the€doctrine€of€apportionment€and€(2)Ð p° Ðwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€giving€precedence€to€an€adjoining€landownerððs€line€over€an€existingÐ \œ Ðartificial€monument.€€The€remaining€four€issues€relate€to€Mr.€Whicherððs€claim€of€adverse€possession.Ð H ˆ ÐWe€need€address€the€issue€of€adverse€possession€only€if€we€first€€determine€that€legal€title€to€theÐ 4 t Ðdisputed€strip€lies€with€the€Clouses€rather€than€Mr.€Whicher€.׃N×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€turn€first€therefore€to€the€questionÐ  ` Ðof€where€the€actual€boundary€lies€under€the€partiesðð€deeds.Ð  L  ÐÌà  àThis€case€essentially€presents€a€choice€between€two€competing€surveys.€Because€this€is€anÐ ä $  Ðappeal€from€a€decision€made€by€the€trial€court€following€a€bench€trial,€the€standard€of€review€setÐ Ð  Ðforth€in€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d)€applies.€€Our€review€of€the€trial€court's€factual€findings€is€thus€deÐ ¼ü  Ðnovo€upon€the€record,€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€unless€the€evidence€preponderatesÐ ¨è  Ðotherwise.€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòKendrick€v.€Shoemakeóó,€90€S.W.3d€566,€569€(Tenn.€2002).€WeÐ ”Ô  Ðwill€also€give€great€weight€to€a€trial€court's€factual€findings€that€rest€on€determinations€of€credibility.Ð €À ÐòòEstate€of€Walton€v.€Youngóó,€950€S.W.2d€956,€959€(Tenn.€1997).€€The€presumption€of€correctnessÐ l¬ Ðrequires€us€to€accept€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€unless€the€aggregate€weight€of€the€evidenceÐ X˜ Ðdemonstrated€that€a€finding€of€fact€other€than€the€one€found€by€the€trial€court€is€more€probably€true.€Ð D„ ÐòòEstate€of€Haynes€v.€Bradenóó,€835€S.W.2d€19,€20€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€Questions€of€law€receiveÐ 0p Ðplenary€review.€€òòMalone€&€Hyde€Food€Servs.€v.€Parsonóó,€642€S.W.2d€157,€159€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð \ Ð1982).Ð H ÐÌà  àA€trial€court's€determination€of€a€real€property€boundary€line€is€a€factual€determination,€ratherÐ à  Ðthan€a€legal€one.€òòMix€v.€Milleróó,€27€S.W.3d€508,€514€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999);€òòTaylor€v.€Carlinóó,€No.Ð Ì  ÐW2003-00640-COA-R3-CV,€2004€WL€367699€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2004)€(Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11Ð ¸ø Ðapplication€filed€April€23,€2004).€€Thus,€where€the€trial€court,€as€the€finder€of€fact,€is€required€toÐ ¤ä Ðchose€between€two€competing€surveys,€we€must€presume€that€the€trial€courtððs€decision€is€correctÐ Ð Ðunless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòStovall€v.€Bagsbyóó,€€No.€M2002„01901„COA„R3„CV,Ð |¼ Ð2003€WL€22768677€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov€24,€2003)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€Ð h¨ ÐòòHorne€v.€Warmathóó,€No.€02A01-9509-CH-00201,€1996€WL€465549€(Tenn.€App.€Aug.16,€1996)Ð T ” Ð(Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€denied€Jan.€6,€1997).Ð @!€  ÐÌà  àAfter€carefully€reviewing€the€record€in€this€case,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€does€notÐ #X" Ðpreponderate€against€the€trial€court's€decision€to€adopt€the€boundary€line€set€forth€in€the€WillifordÐ $D # Ðsurvey.€Neither€surveyor€located€an€original€marker€for€the€boundary€in€dispute€and€neither€couldÐ ð$0!$ Ðmatch€the€original€Petty€plat€exactly.€€However,€we€conclude€that€the€Williford€survey€moreÐ Ü%"% Ðaccurately€reflects€the€true€boundary€between€the€parties€as€set€forth€in€the€partiesðð€deeds€and€theÐ È&#& Ðoriginal€Petty€plat.€€Ð ´'ô#' ÐÑ/VÑâ âÑXHÑâ âÑ  ÑÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€general€rule€is€that€in€determining€boundaries€resort€is€to€be€had,Ð ¬ì Ðfirst,€to€natural€objects€or€landmarks,€because€of€their€very€permanentÐ ˜Ø Ðcharacter,€next,€to€artificial€monuments€or€markers,€then€to€boundaryÐ „Ä Ðlines€of€adjacent€owners,€and€then€to€courses€and€distances.€But€thisÐ p° Ðgeneral€rule,€as€to€the€relative€importance€of€these€guides€to€theÐ \œ Ðascertainment€of€a€boundary€of€land,€is€not€an€inflexible€or€absoluteÐ H ˆ Ðone.€€The€use€of€the€rule€is€as€a€means€to€the€discovery€of€theÐ 4 t Ðintention€of€the€parties.€To€arrive€at€the€intention€of€the€parties€to€theÐ  ` Ðinstrument€is€the€purpose€of€all€rules€of€construction,€and€this€appliesÐ  L  Ðto€the€description€of€premises€conveyed€as€well€as€to€other€parts€ofÐ ø 8  Ðthe€instrument.Ðä $ ` x` x ÐÌòòPritchard€v.€Reborióó,€135€Tenn.€328,€332„333,€186€S.W.€121,€122€(Tenn.€1916).€€Ð ¼ü  ÐÌà  àThe€primary€and€fundamental€rule€to€which€all€others€relate€and€must€yield€is€that€theÐ ”Ô  Ðintention€of€the€parties€gathered€from€the€whole€instrument,€taken€in€connection€with€surroundingÐ €À Ðcircumstances€must€control.€€€òòMorgan€v.€Goodóó,€No.€M2001„00683„COA„R3„CV,€€2002€WL€2008801Ð l¬ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept.€3,€2002).Ð X˜ ÐÌà  àBoth€surveyors€agree€that€the€Petty€plat€is€flawed€and€that€a€shortfall€exists.€€Mr.€JohnsÐ 0p Ðtestified€that€the€shortfall€is€on€lot€78€and€79€and€apportioned€the€shortfall€between€those€two€lots.€Ð \ ÐHe€admits,€however,€that€he€did€not€survey€the€whole€street€and€did€not€know€if€there€is€ð ðgroundððforÐ H Ðeveryone€to€have€what€they€bought€based€on€the€original€plat.€€€He€conceded€his€survey€was€a€bestÐ ô4 Ðð ðguestimate,ðð€that€he€tried€to€create€a€line€that€was€equitable€and€fair€to€both€parties,€and€that€anotherÐ à  Ðsurveyor€might€chose€a€different€line.€Ð Ì  ÐÌà  àMr.€Williford,€on€the€other€hand,€concluded€that€the€shortfall€is€actually€in€the€curve€on€lotÐ ¤ä Ð77,€because€the€original€Petty€Plat€contains€no€curve€data.€€He€testified€that,€absent€curve€data,€it€isÐ Ð Ðimpossible€to€accurately€determine€the€frontage€of€lot€77.€€He€also€testified€that€apportionment€of€theÐ |¼ Ðshortfall€would€require€resetting€the€boundaries€of€every€lot€on€the€street.€€In€addition,€Mr.Ð h¨ ÐWillifordððs€survey€€comports€with€the€accepted€boundary€between€lot€79€and€lot€80.€Ð T ” ÐÌà  àAs€the€trial€court€acknowledged,€ð ðthere€are€facts€and€circumstances€that€would€support€theÐ ,"l! Ðconclusion€reached€by€both€surveyors.ðð€€€However,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€theÐ #X" Ðtrial€courtððs€selection€of€boundary€line€in€Mr.€Willifordððs€survey.€€Because€the€Williford€survey€moreÐ $D # Ðaccurately€reflects€the€partiesðð€true€boundary,€we€need€not€address€Mr.€Whicherððs€adverse€possessionÐ ð$0!$ Ðclaim.€€Accordingly,€the€Clousesðð€remaining€issues€related€to€the€adverse€possession€claim€areÐ Ü%"% Ðpretermitted.€€€Ð È&#& ÐÌà@^^(ìàò òIII.ó óˆÐ  (à$( ÐÌà  àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€suchÐ x*¸&* Ðfurther€proceedings€as€may€be€necessary.€€We€also€tax€the€costs€of€the€appeal€to€Truman€and€SueÐ d+¤'+ ÐClouse€and€their€surety€for€which€execution,€if€necessary,€may€issue.Ð P,(, ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPER€CURIAM