WPC  J:a6$6Hp(vaYʫx 42&DdЭV[SE2 gg%Hd+)MAt5W`#R[ YJdK$np5$tH|c "]x9ϓlvϳyn)ei hh5whQ"M%IU:CcIIm$ZR31ra z^,-ux8kTZ`/l mhSћ$,мFCUg2bȬt,G)g'Rytp i!{(^oߔp{n?~ífe=:b?/PlszjUD]rZu:ƕ ?Qmΐqk|k{(e}*P&HN\6F,d* vtIЫ,RmqHHF*# LU:W % 0(b w@4 .6U:999999999999999999999 AQs 0D 0D 0D  D/V B B D3 HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh,  AZ"Arial RegularX($- - DEU !Ӏ+u[%3|x+ ""   XOXXX SX XO   Ad FILED XOX S  November5,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxd dP Pd'''''dxd !  !!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7OXXdd7    fxXX  +!r )<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxP,  r!++++!!+++@  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@(ATNASHVILLE XOXfxԈ  +t )>.*jx` `@EL ` 8ttxP0  tߛ+EDDIECOOK,inhiscapacityas 8   )   HICKMANCOUNTYHIGHWAY 8   )   SUPERINTENDENT,andTHE 8   )  HICKMANCOUNTYHIGHWAY 8   ) zr  COMMISSION,     8   ) `X    0      8   ) Plaintiffs/Appellees, 8   ) ,$    0      8   )  AppealNo.     0      8   )  01A019712CH00705   VS.  0      8   )     0      8   )  HickmanChancery    0      8   )  No.9612187  ARCHIEGLENEDWARDSand 8   )   @      H!  #   wife,MARTHASUEEDWARDS, 8   ) vn   0      8   ) Defendants/Appellants. 8   ) B: @ APPEALEDFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTOFHICKMANCOUNTY@"ATCENTERVILLE,TENNESSEE@7 7 THEHONORABLEDONALDP.HARRIS,JUDGE̜DANADYEP.O.Box11105WestEndAvenueCenterville,Tennessee37033 AttorneyforPlaintiffs/AppelleesJERRYSCOTTJOHNKEA110CityCenterBuilding100EastVineStreetMurfreesboro,Tennessee371331216 AttorneysforDefendants/Appellants@  AFFIRMEDINPART;REVERSEDINPART;@(ANDREMANDED̛̜  0      8     BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:KOCH,J.CAIN,J.  9289  PXXO@tt(OPINION XOXPԈ    0 TheHickmanCountyRoadSuperintendentfiledadeclaratoryjudgmentactiontoascertainifanoldcemeteryroadacrossthedefendantspropertywasapublicroad.TheChanceryCourtofHickmanCountyruledthattheroadwasnotapublicroadbutthatthedefendantspropertywassubjecttoaneasementcreatedinadeedintheirchainoftitle.Sincethecourtgrantedreliefthatnoonehadsought,toindividualsnotpartiestotheaction,wereverse.@- I.  0(   0 Thecomplaintinthiscase,filedbytheHighwaySuperintendentandthemembersoftheHighwayCommission,namedArchieGlenEdwardsandhiswife,MarthaSueEdwards,asdefendants,andsoughtadeclarationthataroadacrosstheϜEdwardspropertytotheBatesCemeterywasacountyroad.Afterahearing,thechancellorheld(1)thattheroadwasnotapublicroad,but(2)thattheEdwardspropertyistheservientestateofanexpresseasementcontainedina1946deedtotheEdwardspredecessorsintitle.Thedeedsareintherecord,buttherewasnootherevidencepreservedatthehearing.TheEdwardsfiledthisappealattackingtheholdingthattherewasaneasementacrosstheirproperty.TheCountyHighwayϜCommissionfiledanappelleesbriefbutdidnotraiseanyissueswithrespecttothechancellorsholdingthattheroadwasnotapublicroad.@- II.  d1\*.   0 Mr.andMrs.Edwardsassertthattheportionofthelowercourtsjudgmentfindingthattheirpropertyissubjecttoaneasementisvoid,becauseitwasnotallegedinthepleadings.Inanearlierdispensationwewouldhaveagreedand 816 summarilyreversedthelowercourtsjudgment.Ourcasesmadeitclearthatthecourtsjurisdictionoveraquestion whichitassumestodecidewasonlyinvokedbythatquestionbeingraisedinthepleadings.Ishamv.Sienknecht,59S.W.779at782   (Tenn.Ct.Chan.App.1900).Ajudgmenthadtobejustifiedbythefactsalleged.Statev.Collier,53S.W.2d982(Tenn.1932).Otherwisethejudgmentwas h`  consideredcoramnonjudice.Loftisv.Dearing,201S.W.2d655(Tenn.1947).See H@  alsoFidelityPhenixFireIns.Co.ofN.Y.v.Jackson,181S.W.2d625(Tenn.1944). (    0 Thequestion,now,however,isgovernedbyRule54.03,Tenn.R.Civ.ϜProc.,whichreflectsamoreliberalapproachtopleading.Rule54.03providesthat [e]veryfinaljudgmentshallgranttherelieftowhichthepartyinwhosefavoritisrenderedisentitled,evenifthepartyhasnotdemandedsuchreliefinthepartyspleadings.Underthatprovisionwewouldhesitatetoholdajudgmentvoidwhereallthenecessarypartieswerebeforethecourtandtheissuewasfairlytried,eventhoughtheissuewasnotraisedinthepleadings.Rule15.02,Tenn.R.Civ.Proc.alsoallowsthepartiestotryissuesbyexpressorimpliedconsent.Thus,ajudgmentdecidinganissuenotraisedinthepleadingsisnolongerperseinvalid.  0 ThelastpartofRule54.03,however,imposesadueprocessrequirementonthetrialcourt.Itprovides: [T]hecourtshallnotgivethesuccessfulpartyrelief,thoughsuchpartymaybeentitledtoit,wheretheproprietyofsuchreliefwasnotlitigatedandtheopposingpartyhadnoopportunitytoassertdefensestosuchrelief.Inthiscasethe successfulparty,anypersonclaimingtherighttousetheeasement,wasnotevenbeforethecourt(theonlyplaintiffsbeingtheRoadSuperintendentandtheHighwayCommission.)TherecorddoesnotreflectthattheeasementissuewaslitigatedorthattheEdwardshadanopportunitytodefendthatissue.Itistruethattheburdenisusuallyontheappellanttopreservetherecordfor 926 review,Statev.Banes,874S.W.2d73(Tenn.Crim.App.1993),buttheappellant  mayproceedwithlessthanafullrecord,andtheburdenthenshiftstotheappelleetodesignatethepartsoftherecorditdeemsessential.Rule24(a),Tenn.R.App.Proc.Sincetherewasnopartybeforethecourthavinganinterestintheeasement,itisunderstandablethattheremainingpartoftherecordwasnotdesignated.Thus,onthestateoftherecordbeforeus,weholdthatthetrialcourtsdeclarationofaneasementacrosstheEdwardslandmustbereversed.  0 Thejudgmentdeclaringaneasementacrosstheappellantslandandenjoiningtheappellantsfromclosingthegatesacrosstheoldroadisreversed.InallotherrespectsthelowercourtsjudgmentisaffirmedandthecauseisremandedtotheChanceryCourtofHickmanCountyforanyotherproceedingsthatmaybecomenecessary.Taxthecostsonappealtotheappellees.̜  0      8 ______________________________________  0      8 BENH.CANTRELL,PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S.CONCUR:_____________________________WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE_____________________________WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE  4-1 X  XXY @. INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @(ATNASHVILLE  XYXԈ  EDDIECOOK,inhiscapacityas 8   )   HICKMANCOUNTYHIGHWAY 8   )   SUPERINTENDENT,andTHE 8   )   HICKMANCOUNTYHIGHWAY 8   )  AppealNo. |  COMMISSION,     8   )  01A019712CH00705 l     0      8   )   \   Plaintiffs/Appellees, 8   )  HickmanChancery L    0      8   )  No.9612187   <  VS.  0      8   )   ,|    0      8   )   l  ARCHIEGLENEDWARDSand 8   )  AffirmedinPart;Reversed #   \ wife,MARTHASUEEDWARDS, 8   )  inPart;andRemanded L   0      8   )   <  Defendants/Appellants. 8   ) , XXY @uu'JUDGMENT    XYX  0 Thiscausecameontobeheardupontherecordonappealfromthe 8 ChanceryCourtofHickmanCounty,briefsandargumentofcounsel;uponconsiderationwhereof,thisCourtisoftheopinionthatinthedecreeoftheChancellorthereisreversibleerror.  0 InaccordancewiththeopinionoftheCourtfiledherein,itis,therefore,orderedanddecreedbythisCourtthatthedecreeisreversedastodeclaring granting aneasementacrosstheappellantslandandenjoiningappellantsfromclosingthegat tes es.Inallotherrespectsthedecreeisaffirmed.ThecauseisremandedtotheChanceryCourtofHickmanCountyforanyfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinionandforthecollectionofthecostsaccruedbelow.  0 CostsofthisappealaretaxedagainstEddieCook,inhiscapacityasHickmanCountyHighwaySuperintendentandtheHickmanCountyHighwayCommission,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.  0      8 ______________________________________  0      8 BENH.CANTRELL,PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S.  0      8 ______________________________________  0      8 WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE  0      8 _____________________________________  0      8 WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE