ÿWPC; …# VU:a %› 0¸¡bY 4a u 0ü„ 0D€ Ä w@Ì D3 0J? 0T‰ 0^Ý 0h; 0r£ 0| 0†‘ 0 1u§ 0dU*€B)ªDCÓ AM…cv~èvÓf B9 0@V AO–Æå 0D« D/ï B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX( 7$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` ` ÑÓÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑ- ù-©U!3|x§(¬(3T6$¤¤Ý ƒ 7!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` °ÑÓÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó “”•–E—˜™šD›EœÓ€****'ÿÿdxd2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ {Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òOctoberÏ21,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€"ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHPð€ÿÜÿìô”(üHPð€P € €'Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÑ p ћрÑÑ7€¿ºXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òœÑ  ÑÙ€€ÙßL€%&$;+'h|` à. `€€LßIN›€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌEASTERN€SECTION€AT€KNOXVILLEÌó ó„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„ÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌHAROLD€E.€ELKINS,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àKNOXÏCIRCUITÌà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€Ï03A01„9607„CV„00227Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌJOHN€F.€MILLER,à àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌà àDefendant/Appelleeà àà à)ÌÌò òòòÌóóó óÌÌDudley€W.€Taylor€and€David€H.€Jones,€Knoxville,€For€theÏAppellant€ÌÌEdwin€L.€Treadway€and€Mark€S.€Dessauer,€Knoxville,€For€theÏAppelleeÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌÓ  Óó óóóINMAN,€Senior€JudgeÌòòò òÌÌóóÌÓ  ÓÓÓó óà àThis€case€arises€out€of€the€partiesðð€investments,€andÏœtheir€investment›€practice,€with€Joseph€C.€Taylor,€deceased.Ìà àNarrowly€drawn,€the€plaintiff€alleges€that,€in€October€1995,€he€was€induced€by€TaylorÏto€loan€to€Taylor€and€the€defendant€the€sum€of€$181,915.00€which€would,€post€facto,€beÏevidenced€by€a€promissory€note€and€appropriate€collateral.€€œTo€accomplish€this,€the›€plaintiffÏpurchased€three€(3)€cashierððs€checks€œon€October€25,€1996from›€as€many€banks,€payable€toÏthe€defendant,€and€delivered€them€to€Taylor,€who€delivered€them€to€the€œdefendant.€€TheÏthree€checks€aggregated€$181,915.00›Ìà àTaylor€died€November€3,€œ1995.€€No›€promissory€note€or€collateral€was€delivered€to€theÏplaintiff,€who€brings€this€action€seeking€to€recover€œthe›€funds€under€whatever€theory€isÏavailable€to€him.Ìà àThe€defendant€denied€the€plaintiffððs€asserted€right€to€recover€the€funds.€€He€allegedÏthat€the€cashierððs€checks€represented€obligations€of€the€issuing€banks€to€the€payee„defendant€and€that€the€plaintiff€had€no€property€interest€in€them.€€His€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment€was€granted;€the€propriety€of€which€is€presented€for€our€œreview,€which€is€òòde€novoóóÏwith€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€€òòSee€Presley€v.€Bennettóó,€860€S.W.2d€857€(Tenn.€1993).›Ìà àThe€dispositive€œfacts›€are€not€in€material€dispute.Ìà àFrom€August€3,€1996€to€November€2,€1995,€the€defendant€had€97€investmentÏtransactions€with€Taylor€involving€millions€of€dollars.Ìà àIn€October€1995,€the€defendant€invested€two€million€dollars€with€Taylor,€for€theÏpurchase€of€bonds€which€were€anticipated€to€be€called€on€October€19,€1995€with€a€premiumÏof€43%.€€On€the€call€date,€Taylor€informed€the€defendant€that€the€bonds€had€been€called€butÏpayment€would€be€delayed€owing€to€accounting€procedures.€€œOn›€October€21,€1995,€TaylorÍand€the€defendant€met€to€further€discuss€the€problem,€at€which€œtime›€the€defendant€requestedÏœa€partial€payment›€from€œTaylor,›€who€wrote€a€check€drawn€on€Taylor€&€Associates€payable€toÏthe€œdefendant›€in€the€amount€of€$181,915.00.€€Five€days€later,€Taylor€delivered€to€theÏdefendant€the€three€(3)€cashierððs€checks€heretofore€œreferenced›€to€replace€his€personalÏcheck€on€which€he€had€stopped€œpayment€for€reasons€not€explicated€in€the€record.›Ìà àThe€plaintiff€testified€that€Taylor€requested€that€he€loan€Taylor€and€the€defendantÏœ$181,915.00,›€for€a€short„term€business€venture.€€He€thereupon€purchased€the€cashierððsÏchecks€payable€to€Miller€and€delivered€them€to€Taylor.€€He€did€not€know€Miller€and€hadÏnever€done€business€with€œhim;€he€was€simply€investing€with€Taylor€to€make€a€quick€profit,€asÏhe€had€often€done€before.›Ìà àThe€plaintiff€and€the€defendant€did€not€know€one€another,€had€no€communicationÏand€were€not€in€privity.€€Because€the€remitter€of€the€cashierððs€check€was€Harold€Elkins,€theÏdefendant€asked€Taylor€ð ðwho€Elkins€wasðð;€Taylor€replied€that€Elkins€was€his€accountant€whoÏhad€been€instructed€to€purchase€the€checks.Ìà àPlaintiff€argues€that€the€cashierððs€checks€constituted€a€loan€to€the€defendant,€whoseÏrefusal€to€repay€the€funds€or€to€deliver€a€promissory€note€constituted€breach€of€contract.€€WeÏcannot€agree,€because€there€is€no€evidence€of€a€contract€between€the€parties,€which€canÏonly€be€created€by€their€acts,€òòsee€Johnson€v.€Central€Natððl€Ins.€Co.€of€Omahaóó,€356€S.W.2dÏ277€(Tenn.€1961),€and€there€must€be€a€meeting€of€minds€as€to€the€asserted€terms€of€theÏcontract.€€òòBatson€v.€Pleasant€View€Util.€Dist.óó,€592€S.W.2d€578€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1979)€€Here,Ïthe€parties€did€not€know€each€other,€and€the€unilateral€statements€of€the€plaintiff€that€TaylorÍtold€him€the€funds€were€a€loan€to€the€defendants€cannot€satisfy€the€requirement€that€œthere›€beÏa€meeting€of€œminds.€€The€plaintiff€was€transacting€business€with€Taylor€only.€€He€isÏessentially€claiming€the€right€to€trace€the€funds€since€the€investment€soured.›Ìà àPlaintiff€next€argues€that€he€is€entitled€to€rescind€the€œcontract›€œand,›€thereby,€to€recoverÏthe€funds.€€A€short€answer€to€this€contention€is€simply€that€there€is€insufficient€evidence€of€aÏcontract€between€the€parties.Ì€à àPlaintiff€next€argues€that€there€was€a€principal„agency€relationship€between€TaylorÏand€the€defendant€which€establishes€a€basis€for€the€defendantððs€liability.€€Even€assumingÏthat€Taylor€was€the€defendantððs€broker€(and€if€he€was,€he€was€also€œplaintiffððs›€broker)€there€isÏno€evidence€whatever€that€the€defendant€knew€or€should€have€known€that€the€cashierððsÏchecks€somehow€constituted€a€loan€to€him.€€The€plaintiff€argues€that€the€defendant€acceptedÏfunds€and€is€therefore€liable€for€payment.€€But€there€is€no€evidence€that€the€defendantÏcontracted€to€borrow€these€funds.Ìà àWe€have€considered€the€other€theories€of€recovery€alleged€by€the€plaintiff€and€findÏthem€to€be€without€merit.€€The€parties€extensively€briefed€the€question€of€the€nature€of€aÏcashierððs€œcheck,›€which€we€find€interesting€but€essentially€irrelevant.€€Had€these€partiesÏagreed€upon€a€loan€of€money,€one€from€the€other,€we€know€of€no€reason€why€the€lenderÏcould€not,€if€he€chose,€purchase€a€cashierððs€check€for€delivery€to€the€œborrower›€in€lieu€ofÏtendering€his€personal€or€certified€check.€€But€here,€it€œis›€œevident›€that€Taylor€was€taking€fromÏPaul€to€pay€Peter€and€recourse€is€elsewhere.Ìà àThe€judgment€is€affirmed€at€the€costs€of€the€appellant.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌConcur:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€JudgeÌœ›œ›