ÿWPC¦  iÁ…•RY$aÒÒì¬.Y%R‰­²ó­‡Ê|‡ïÄAKas´îœ¥£Ÿ |ß13›Û~¿1ŽëP„e2ú F‡~èÔ„EçÐWÏøFö{r4‰~O–Ï±Š´‰@±ã·kHž®@×ð•¹úß¾yMj¾¯*ls Î8ºhœFMi=}éÄw?ñÇñÖ¤'¥•™?æ I=$`{·9ŠžZ Ç‘Z€Q(ĶôgPý¼È£Ü%Jm/$.‹ñ3ÒäÅE[>S˜ÚxR† ŸŒM&…"ÌÝË^Ø+>µ2>.ƒwÞª±˜W#ÁÂU1Nƒ %Ñ 0:×UN UN_ ^ ­ w¹ 4½ Ñ à mâ â ù – <ž NÚ Ú 3Ü @ &OEuîw 0 DeÓ© ^|›Ú u } ……   •••"ŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸ 0 ÈÁÁÁÁ B‰ ˜HP LaserJet 4Si,ü,,,,,ü0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regularëi )L ö~ì(#ky€Jca4J3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ “Ý ƒRó¼$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ôΔòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€X5ÐXòôΔÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôΔòXX5ÐÔThe€Railroads€relied€upon€notations€accompanying€railroad€maps.€€The€notation€for€the€relevant€parcel€stated,€Ð ° Ðð ðCharter€width€claimed€under€decisions€of€Tennessee€Courts.ðð  2Ý ƒRó¼$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ôΔòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€X5ÐXòôΔÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôΔòXX5ÐÔThe€trial€court€relied€upon€òòRailroad€Co.€v.€Telfordððs€Executorsóó,€89€Tenn.€292€(Tenn.€1890). )Ý ƒRó¼$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ôΔòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€X5ÐXòôΔÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôΔòXX5ÐÔòòSee€Buhl€v.€U.S.€Sprint€Communications€Co.óó,€840€S.W.2d€904,€909€(Tenn.€1992)€("An€easement€merely€givesÐ ° Ðto€a€railroad€company€a€right„of„way€in€the€land€--€that€is,€the€right€to€use€the€land€for€its€purposes.€€€This€includes€theÐ tÄ Ðright€to€employ€the€land€taken€for€the€purposes€of€constructing,€maintaining,€and€operating€a€railroad€thereon.€€€UnderÐ 8ˆ Ðthis€right,€the€company€has€the€free€and€perfect€use€of€the€surface€of€the€land€so€far€as€is€necessary€for€all€its€purposes,Ð üL Ðand€the€right€to€use€as€much€above€and€below€the€surface€as€may€be€needed.€.€.€.€€The€former€proprietor€of€the€soil€stillÐ À Ðretains€the€fee€of€the€land€and€his€right€to€the€land€for€every€purpose€not€incompatible€with€the€rights€of€the€railroadÐ „Ô Ðcompany.ðð).€€ 6Ý ƒRó¼$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ôΔòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€X5ÐXòôΔÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôΔòXX5ÐÔð ðThe€most€common€description€of€the€standard€for€preliminary€injunction€in€federal€and€state€courts€is€a€four„Ð ° Ðfactor€test:€(1)€the€threat€of€irreparable€harm€to€plaintiff€if€the€injunction€is€not€granted;€(2)€the€balance€between€this€harmÐ tÄ Ðand€the€injury€that€granting€the€injunction€would€inflict€on€the€defendant;€(3)€the€probability€that€plaintiff€will€succeedÐ 8ˆ Ðon€the€merits;€and€(4)€the€public€interest.ðð€Robert€Banks,€Jr.€&€June€F.€Ô_ÔEntmanÔ_Ô,€òòTennessee€Civil€Procedureóó€€ðð4„3(l)Ð üL Ð(1999).€€\Opinion Summary äÝ ƒRó¼$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ôΔòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€X5ÐXòôΔÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôΔòXX5ÐÔAlthough€few€Tennessee€cases€interpret€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€65.05ððs€ð ðwrongfully€enjoinedðð€language,€casesÐ ° Ðconstruing€the€law€prior€to€the€1971€adoption€of€the€Rules€recognize€the€courtððs€discretion€to€impose€injunction€bondsÐ tÄ Ðas€a€prerequisite€to€obtaining€an€injunction.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€€Hubbard€v.€Fravellóó,€80€Tenn.€304€(1883);òò€Newell€v.€Porteróó,€29Ð 8ˆ ÐTenn.€325€(1849).€€Then,€as€now,€the€purpose€of€the€bond€was€to€compensate€for€damages€arising€from€the€wrongfulÐ üL Ðissuance€of€an€injunction.€€òòSee€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€65.05;€Russell€v.€Tennessee€&€Kentucky€Tobacco€Co.óó,€89€S.W.2d€907,Ð À Ð910(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1935);€òòSmith€v.€Ruohsóó,€58€S.W.€1101,€1106€(Tenn.€Ch.€App.€1900).(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÉÝ ƒRó¼$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ôΔòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X5ÐXòôΔÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôΔòXX5ÐÔThe€parties€agreed€below€that€the€proper€defendants€were€Andre€Harakas,€Sara€Harakas,€Cynthia€Vernon,€andÐ ° ÐLouise€Miner.€€The€group€of€defendants,€now€appellants,€will€be€referred€to€as€ð ðthe€Harakasesðð€throughout€this€opinion.?\Appellees Attorney Name & Appellee's Name. ‘Ý ƒRó¼$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ôΔòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€X5ÐXòôΔÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôΔòXX5ÐÔFederal€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€65(c)€provides:€Ð ° Ðà8  àNo€restraining€order€or€preliminary€injunction€shall€issue€except€upon€the€giving€of€securities€by€theÐ tÄ Ðapplicant,€in€such€sum€as€the€court€deems€proper,€for€the€payment€of€such€costs€and€damages€as€mayÐ 8ˆ Ðbe€incurred€or€suffered€by€any€party€who€is€found€to€have€been€wrongfully€enjoined€or€restrained.ÐüLÐ Ð  Ð123512 Ý ƒRó¼$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ôΔòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€X5ÐXòôΔÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôΔòXX5ÐÔ€òòSee€Missouri,€Kansas€&€Texas€Ry.€Co.€v.€Elliottóó,€184€U.S.€530,€539,€22€S.Ct.€446,€450,€46€L.Ed.€673€(1902);Ð ° ÐòòTullock€v.€Mulvane,óó€184€U.S.€497,€510,€22€S.Ct.€372,€377,€46€L.Ed.€657€(1902);€òòFireman's€Fund€Ins.€Co.€v.€S.E.K.Ð tÄ ÐConstr.€Co.,óó€436€F.2d€1345,€1352€(10th€Cir.€1971).(YG2ó¼$¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ôΔòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X5ÐXòôΔÔ dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡XµãXXXÔÔ‡¼«´»XXµãÔÑ  ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ#†XµãX»¼«´\#ÔÔ‡îàîXXµãÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ Ü, ÐÔ#†XµãXîîàÈ#ÔÔ‡¼«´»XXµãÔà@ðð ìàJanuary€2000€SessionˆÐ X ÐÔ#†XµãX»¼«´x#ÔÌò òÔ‡¼«´»XXµãÔÔ% ‡ ÔÓ  ÓSOUTH€CENTRAL€TENNESSEE€RAILROAD€AUTHORITYÔ%†Ô,€òòet€al.óó€v.€Ô% ‡ ԀР ` ÐANDRE€Ô_ÔHARAKASÔ_ÔÔ%†Ô,€òòet€alóó.Ô#†XµãX»¼«´ú#Ôó óÐ ( x ÐÓ&ÓÌà@¬ ¬ ìàò òDirect€Ô% ‡ ÔÔ%†VÔAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Ô% ‡ ÔÔ_ÔHickmanÔ_ÔÔ%† —Ô€CountyˆÐ 0 € Ðà@  ìàNo.€97131978€€€€€€€Donald€P.€Harris,€ChancellorˆÐ  p ÐÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<ÿ` A߈Ð P  ÐÌà@ß ß ìàNo.€M1999„00567„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô€„R3„CV€„€Filed€August€9,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ԈРÿO  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Þ` AßÐ ß/  Ðó óÌÔ% ‡ ÔÔ#†X5ÐXXXµã=#ÔÔ‡XµãXXX5ÐÔÓ  ÓPlaintiffs,€the€owner€and€lessee€of€property€on€which€a€railroad€track€was€located,€obtained€aÐ Þ. Ðtemporary€injunction€prohibiting€Defendants,€owners€of€adjacent€property,€€from€building€a€houseÐ Î Ðon€what€Plaintiffs€alleged€was€their€right„of„way.€€€After€Defendants€presented€evidence€thatÐ ¾ ÐPlaintiffs€possessed€only€an€easement€as€needed€for€railroad€operations,€rather€than€a€right„of„way,Ð ®þ Ðthe€court€dissolved€the€temporary€injunction€and€denied€a€permanent€injunction.€€Defendants€thenÐ žî Ðfiled€a€motion€to€assess€damages€and€enforce€liability€of€€surety€on€injunction€bond€pursuant€to€Tenn.Ð ŽÞ ÐR.€Civ.€P.€65.05Ô#†X5ÐXXXµãß#ÔÔ‡XµãXXX5ÐÔÔ%†¯Ô,€seekingÔ#†X5ÐXXXµã #ÔÔ‡XµãXXX5ÐÔ€recovery€for€theÔ‡¼«´»XXµãÔ€Ô#†XµãX»¼«´Œ #Ô€losses€resulting€from€the€issuance€of€the€temporaryÐ ~Î Ðinjunction.€€€Defendants€appeal€the€trial€court's€denial€of€their€motion.€We€reverse.Ð –æ ÐÔ#†X5ÐXXXµã\ #ÔÔ‡XµãXXX5ÐÔÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ vÆ ÐReversed€and€Remandedó óÐ f¶ ÐÓÈ ÓÌòòPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,óó€andÐ F– ÐòòWilliam€B.€Ô% ‡' ÔCain,€JJòòóóÔ%†'ý Ôóó.,€joined.Ð 6† ÐÌH.E.€Miller,€Jr.,€Ô_ÔGallatinÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€appellants€Andre€Ô_ÔHarakasÔ_Ô,€Sara€Ô_ÔHarakasÔ_Ô,€Cynthia€LouiseÐ !f ÐVernon,€and€Louise€Miner.Ð "V  ÐÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†P ÔÌWilliam€Ô_ÔLandisÔ_Ô€Turner,€Ô_ÔHohenwaldÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€appellees€South€Central€Tennessee€RailroadÐ æ#6" ÐAuthority€and€South€Central€Railroad€Company.Ð Ö$& # ÐÌÌÐ  ¦'ö"& ÐÔ_ÔÑ8€5ÐXdìdÈ8Ñà@55'ìàò òOPINIONˆÐ ° Ðó óÌÔ#†X5ÐXXXµã¥ #Ôà  àThe€appellants,€€the€Harakases,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€seek€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€their€€post„trialÐ à Ðmotion,€Ô‡XµãXXX5ÐÔmade€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€65.05Ô#†X5ÐXXXµãô#Ô,€to€assess€damages€and€collect€upon€an€injunctionÐ |Ì Ðbond€which€had€been€posted€by€the€appellees,€Ô‡XµãXXX5ÐÔSouth€Central€Tennessee€Railroad€Authority€(theÐ |Ì Ðð ðAuthorityðð)€and€South€Central€Tennessee€Railroad€Company€(the€ð ðCompanyðð€and,€collectively,Ð | Ì Ð"the€Railroads")Ô#†X5ÐXXXµãÑ#Ô.€€In€the€underlying€action,€the€Harakases€were€enjoined,€upon€the€Railroads'€motion,Ð l ¼ Ðfrom€continuing€construction€on€a€house€they€had€begun€building€sixty€feet€from€the€center€of€aÐ l ¼ Ðrailroad€track€owned€by€the€Authority€and€leased€to€the€Company.€€The€Harakases€assert€that€theyÐ X ¨ Ðincurred€damages€from€the€four€and€a€half€month€delay€in€construction€and€were€wrongfully€enjoinedÐ D ”  Ðfrom€an€act€they€had€a€right€to€perform.€Although€neither€party€has€appealed€the€judgment€in€theÐ 0€  Ðunderlying€action,€the€facts€of€that€dispute€must€be€examined€in€considering€the€issues€raised€in€thisÐ l  Ðappeal.Ð X  ÐÌà  àIn€November€of€1997,€the€Harakases€were€building€a€house€on€real€property€they€owned.€€TheÐ à0  Ðproperty€adjoined€land€owned€by€the€Railroads€around€their€railroad€track.€€On€November€10,€theÐ Ì ÐRailroads€filed€a€complaint€in€which€they€claimed€to€own€a€right„of„way,€extending€one€hundredÐ ¸ Ð(100)€feet€from€the€centerline€of€the€track.€€They€alleged€that€the€Harakasesðð€construction,€being€onlyÐ ¤ô Ðsixty€(60)€feet€from€the€centerline,€encroached€on€their€right„of„way.€They€further€alleged€that€theÐ à ÐHarakasesðð€ð ðviolation€of€Plaintiffsðð€property€rights€is€willful,€intentional,€and€gross,€they€being€fullyÐ |Ì Ðinformed€of€the€facts€concerning€the€property€and€the€rights€of€the€parties€therein.ððÐ h¸ ÐÌ€€Ô‡XµãXXX5ÐÔà  àÔ#†X5ÐXXXµã #ÔÔ‡XµãXXX5ÐÔBased€upon€this€complaint,€the€Railroads€obtained€a€temporary€restraining€order€("TRO")Ð @ Ðprohibiting€the€€Harakases€from€further€construction€on€the€house€or€other€encroachment€on€theÐ @ Ðright„of„way€the€Railroads€claimed.€€Ô#†X5ÐXXXµãY#ÔThe€court€€required€the€Railroads€to€post€a€$5,000€injunctionÐ 0€ Ðbond.€€That€bond,€with€handwritten€corrections€by€the€surety,€counsel€for€the€Railroads,€read€inÐ 0€ Ðpertinent€part:Ð l ÐÌà8  àThe€condition€of€this€obligation€is€that€the€principal(s)€will€prosecute€the€temporaryÐ ôD Ðrestraining€order€with€effect,€or€in€case€of€failure,€pay€all€costs€that€may€be€adjudgedÐ à0 Ðagainst€the€defendant(s),€and€all€such€damages€as€may€be€sustained€by€theÐ Ì  Ðdefendant(s)€caused€by€the€wrongful€suing€out€of€the€temporary€restraining€order.и!Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àA€hearing€on€the€application€for€temporary€injunction€was€held€on€November€25.€€The€trialÐ #à! Ðcourt€made€preliminary€findings€that€(1)€the€Authority€was€"the€owner,€in€fee,€of€a€strip€of€landÐ |$Ì" Ðrunning€ninety€(90)€feet€in€width€from€the€centerline€of€the€railroad€track€and€lying€between€saidÐ h%¸ # Ðcenterline€and€the€land€acquired€by€Defendant€in€Deed€Book€55,€at€page€433,€ROHCT;"€and€(2)€theÐ T&¤!$ ÐRailroads€were€entitled€to€the€temporary€injunction€restraining€the€Harakases€from€building€anyÐ @'"% Ðpermanent€structure€encroaching€upon€ð ðsaid€strip€of€land.ðð€€The€bond€remained€in€effect.Ð ,(|#& ÐÐ )h$' Ðà  àòòóóThe€Harakases€moved€to€dissolve€the€temporary€injunction€on€January€9,€1998.€€Their€motionÐ ° Ðwas€supported€by€an€affidavit€of€Karen€Dutton,€a€title€examiner.€€€After€tracing€the€title€history€ofÐ œì Ðthe€real€property€on€which€the€house€was€being€built,€the€title€examiner€attested€that€no€right„of„wayÐ ˆØ Ðhad€been€conveyed€to€the€Railroads€by€the€Harakasesðð€predecessors€in€title.€€The€deed€originallyÐ tÄ Ðrelied€upon€by€the€Railroads€was€determined€by€the€examiner€not€to€be€applicable€to€the€property€inÐ `° Ðdispute.€The€trial€court€denied€this€motion,€but€noted€that€the€matter€should€be€set€for€trial€as€soonÐ L œ Ðas€possible.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àAt€the€March€18€trial,€the€parties€stipulated€to€the€relevant€facts,€and€argument€was€had€onÐ  ` Ðthe€law.€The€parties€stipulated€that€the€railroad€track€had€been€in€its€present€location€since€beforeÐ ü L  Ð1900.€€They€further€stipulated€that€there€was€no€record€that€a€right„of„way€on€the€property€where€theÐ è 8  Ðhouse€was€being€constructed€had€been€conveyed€by€deed€to€any€of€the€Railroadsðð€predecessors€inÐ Ô$  Ðinterest€or€to€the€Railroads.€€In€addition,€the€parties€stipulated€that€there€was€no€record€of€any€lawsuitÐ À  Ðby€the€Authority€or€its€predecessors€in€interest€seeking€to€condemn€such€right„of„way€or€any€lawsuitÐ ¬ü  Ðby€the€Harakases'€predecessors€in€interest€seeking€compensation€for€the€taking€of€a€right„of„way.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àFaced€with€this€inability€to€prove€ownership€of€the€right„of„way€as€originally€asserted,€at€trialÐ pÀ Ðthe€Railroads€took€the€position€that€the€right„of„way€originated€in€the€Charter€of€the€Nashville€andÐ \¬ ÐTuscaloosa€Railroad€Company€dated€June€6,€1877.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€That€Charter€authorized€the€railroad€"toÐ H˜ Ðappropriate€as€an€easement€the€right„of„way€not€exceeding€two€hundred€feet,€one€hundred€feet€onÐ 4„ Ðeach€side€of€the€center€line€of€said€road,"€to€be€exercised€by€filing€a€lawsuit.€€No€such€lawsuit€wasÐ  p Ðever€filed,€however.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€Harakases€acknowledged€that€the€Railroads€had€a€prescriptive€easement€based€upon€theirÐ ä4 Ðlong€use€of€the€track,€but€argued€that€such€easement€would€extend€only€approximately€ten€(10)€feetÐ Ð  Ðon€either€side€of€the€center€line€of€the€track,€which€they€claimed€was€the€only€amount€of€landÐ ¼  Ðobviously€used€for€the€operation€of€the€train.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€determined€that,€regardless€of€the€size€of€any€easement€right„of„way€which€theÐ €Ð ÐRailroads€might€hold€under€their€Charter,€the€Harakases,€as€owners€in€fee€of€the€property€on€whichÐ l¼ Ðthe€house€was€being€constructed,€were€entitled€to€use€their€property€in€any€way€that€did€not€interfereÐ X ¨ Ðwith€the€use€of€the€property€for€railroad€purposes.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Based€upon€this€holding€and€its€finding€that€ð ðtheÐ D!” Ðhouse€in€issue€is€located€so€that€it€does€not€interfere€with€the€current€operation€of€the€railroad,"€theÐ 0"€  Ðcourt€held€that€the€Harakases€could€"build€a€house€on€their€property€even€if€it€is€on€the€easement€ofÐ #l! Ðthe€Plaintiffs,€so€long€as€the€house€does€not€interfere€with€the€present€or€future€operations€of€theÐ $X" Ðrailroad."€€The€court€dissolved€the€temporary€injunction,€denied€the€Railroads'€request€for€aÐ ô$D # Ðpermanent€injunction,€and€ordered€the€parties€to€brief€the€issue€of€the€size€of€the€easement.Ð à%0!$ ÐÐ Ì&"% Ðà  àIn€its€final€order€on€this€issue,€the€trial€court€€found€that€€the€Railroads€had€"an€easementÐ ° Ðright„of„way€across€the€property€of€the€defendants€to€the€extent€needed€for€railroad€operations,€notÐ œì Ðto€exceed€100€feet€on€either€side€of€the€center€line€of€the€track."€The€court€further€found€that€theÐ ˆØ ÐHarakasesðð€house€construction€ð ðhas€not€and€will€not€interfere€with€the€operations€of€the€railroad€asÐ tÄ Ðit€presently€existsðð€and€denied€the€Railroadsðð€request€for€an€injunction.€€This€ruling€was€not€contestedÐ `° Ðby€any€party€to€this€action€and€is€not€at€issue€in€this€appeal.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àWhat€is€at€issue,€however,€is€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€the€Harakasesðð€motion€to€enforceÐ $ t Ðliability€of€surety€on€injunction€bond.€€This€motion,€filed€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€65€and€65A,Ð  ` Ðsought€recovery€of€costs€and€damages€resulting€from€the€€issuance€of€the€TRO€and€the€temporaryÐ ü L  Ðinjunction.€€It€alleged€that€the€Harakases€had€incurred€costs€and€damages€in€excess€of€the€amount€ofÐ è 8  Ðthe€surety€bond.€€An€affidavit€filed€later€in€support€of€the€motion€stated€that€the€defendants€hadÐ Ô$  Ðincurred€expenses€exceeding€$5,000€as€a€result€of€the€issuance€and€extension€of€the€TRO.€€TheseÐ À  Ðexpenses€included€$4,650€in€attorney's€fees€and€reporter's€fees,€$1,000€in€interest€on€a€constructionÐ ¬ü  Ðloan€from€the€date€the€TRO€was€issued€to€the€date€the€preliminary€injunction€was€dissolved,€andÐ ˜è  Ð$2,250€for€loss€of€use€of€the€house€for€four€and€one€half€months.€€€The€Harakases€requested€an€orderÐ „Ô  Ðrequiring€the€surety€to€pay€the€face€amount€of€the€bond.€€Sara€Harakas€later€filed€a€second€affidavitÐ pÀ Ðin€November€1998,€€attesting€that€€the€defendants€had€incurred€an€additional€$6,740€in€constructionÐ \¬ Ðcosts€due€to€the€delay€caused€by€the€issuance€of€the€TRO€and€the€temporary€injunction.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€denied€the€Harakases'€request€for€damages.€€It€stated:Ð  p ÐÌà8  à[T]he€court€is€of€the€opinion€that€because€the€defendants€were€constructing€aÐ øH Ðdwelling€upon€the€right„of„way€owned€by€plaintiff€for€the€purpose€of€operating€aÐ ä4 Ðrailroad,€obtaining€a€temporary€restraining€order€until€such€time€as€the€rights€of€theÐ Ð  Ðparties€could€be€litigated€was€not€wrongful.€Ð¼ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€Harakases€argue€that€because€the€facts€did€not€warrant€the€issuance€of€the€injunction€andÐ ”ä Ðthey€at€all€times€had€the€right€to€perform€the€enjoined€act,€they€were€wrongfully€restrained€within€theÐ €Ð Ðmeaning€of€Rule€65.05(1)€and,€therefore,€were€entitled€to€the€injunction€bond€as€damages.€Ð l¼ ÐÒe°Ò€à ½ àòòóóÐ X ¨ Ðà ½ àTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€65.05€states:Ð D!” ÐÌà8 ½ àInjunction€Bond.€(1)€Except€in€such€actions€as€may€be€brought€on€pauper's€oath,€noÐ #l! Ðrestraining€order€or€temporary€injunction€shall€be€granted€except€upon€the€giving€ofÐ $X" Ða€bond€by€the€applicant,€with€surety€in€such€sum€as€the€court€to€whom€the€applicationÐ ô$D # Ðis€made€deems€proper,€for€the€payment€of€such€costs€and€damages€as€may€be€incurredÐ à%0!$ Ðor€suffered€by€any€person€who€is€found€to€have€been€wrongfully€restrained€orÐ Ì&"% Ðenjoined.€The€address€of€the€surety€shall€be€shown€on€the€bond.и'#&½Ð ½Ð  ÐÌà ½ àThe€plain€language€of€the€rule€establishes€that€the€purpose€of€requiring€a€bond€as€a€conditionÐ )à$( Ðprecedent€to€the€issuance€of€a€restraining€order€or€preliminary€injunction€is€"to€provide€a€mechanismÐ |*Ì%) Ðfor€reimbursing€an€enjoined€party€for€harm€it€suffers€as€a€result€of€an€improvidently€issued€injunctionÐ h+¸&* Ðor€restraining€order."€òòHoechst€Diafoil€Co.€v.€Nan€Ya€Plastics€Corp.,óó€174€F.3d€411,€421€(4th€Cir.Ð ° Ð1999).€€ð ðIn€order€to€recover€in€an€action€on€an€injunction€bond,€the€defendant€in€the€original€injunctionÐ œì Ðsuit€need€only€show€that€he€was€wrongfully€restrained€or€enjoined.ðð€€òòTaylor€v.€Morrisóó,€No.€01A01„Ð ˆØ Ð9804„CH„00211,€1999€WL€675138€at€*3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept.€1€1999)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11Ð tÄ Ðapplication€filed)€(citing€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€65.05.)€At€issue€here€is€whether€the€Harakases€wereÐ `° Ð"wrongfully€restrained€or€enjoined"€within€the€meaning€of€Rule€65.05.€€Few€Tennessee€cases€addressÐ L œ Ðthis€issue.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€òòHolder€v.€Clesoróó,€No.€01A01„9702„CV„00080,€1997€WL€528817€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Aug.Ð 8 ˆ Ð27,€1997)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed),€€this€court€considered€the€trial€court's€dismissalÐ $ t Ðof€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€filed€by€defendants€seeking€damages€resulting€from€the€issuanceÐ  ` Ðof€an€injunction€which€had€previously€been€reversed€by€this€court.€òòóó€òòóóIn€the€portion€of€that€opinionÐ ü L  Ðrelevant€to€the€issue€here,€this€courtòòóó€commented€that€its€original€reversal€of€the€injunction€had€beenÐ è 8  Ðbased€on€a€failure€of€proof€on€the€part€of€the€plaintiff,€ð ðthus€resulting€in€the€wrongful€issuance€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðinjunction.ðð€€This€court€further€stated:Ð À  Ðà8 ½ àÐ ½Ð ½Ð  Ðà8 ½ àIn€the€case€before€us,€the€trial€court€issued€an€injunction€upon€plaintiff€posting€anÐ ˜è  Ðinjunction€bond€as€required€by€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€65.05.€€ò òIt€was€determined€that€theÐ „Ô  Ðfacts€did€not€warrant€the€issuance€of€the€injunction;€therefore,€the€injunction€wasÐ tÄ Ðwrongfully€issued.€ó ó€(emphasis€added).Ð`°½Ð ½Ð  ÐòòÌHolderóó,€1997€WL€528817€at€*2.Ð <Œ Ðà ½ àÌà ½ àThis€language€from€€òòHolderóó€is€consistent€with€cases€interpreting€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€65(c),€whichÐ d Ðis€essentially€identical€to€the€Tennessee€rule.׃(×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€federal€cases€find€that€"a€party€has€been€wrongfullyÐ P Ðenjoined€within€the€meaning€of€€Rule€65(c)€when€it€turns€out€the€party€enjoined€had€the€right€all€alongÐ ì< Ðto€do€what€it€was€enjoined€from€doing."€òòNintendo€of€America€v.€Lewis€Galoob€Toysóó,€16€F.3d€1032,Ð Ø( Ð1036€(9th€Cir.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€513€U.S.€822,€115€S.Ct.€85,€130€L.Ed.2d€37€(1994);€òòsee€Blumenthal€v.Ð Ä ÐMerrill€Lynch,€Pierce,€Fenner€&€Smith,€Inc.óó,€910€F.2d€1049,€1054€(2d€Cir.1990)€("A€party€has€beenÐ ° Ð'wrongfully€enjoined'€under€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€65(c)€if€it€is€ultimately€found€that€the€enjoined€party€hadÐ œì Ðat€all€times€the€right€to€do€the€enjoined€act.");€òòDivision€1,€Detroit,€Brotherhood€of€LocomotiveÐ ˆØ ÐEngineers€v.€Consolidated€Rail€Corp.,óó€844€F.2d€1218,€1224€(6th€Cir.€1988)€("reversal€on€appeal€ofÐ tÄ Ðan€injunction€is€tantamount€to€finding€that€the€enjoined€party€was€'wrongfully€enjoined€or€restrained,'Ð ` ° Ðand€.€.€.€such€reversal€triggers€the€wrongfully€enjoined€party's€right€to€pursue€recovery€on€the€securityÐ L!œ Ðbond.");€òòCoyne-Delaney€Co.€v.€Capital€Dev.€Bd.€of€Illóó.,€717€F.2d€385,€391(7th€Cir.1983)€(ð ðMost€casesÐ ° Ðhold€.€.€.€that€a€prevailing€defendant€is€entitled€to€damages€on€the€injunction€bond€unless€there€is€aÐ œì Ðgood€reason€for€not€requiring€the€plaintiff€to€pay€in€the€particular€case.ðð);òòóó€òòState€of€Alabama€ex€relÐ ˆØ ÐSiegelman€v.€U.S.€Environmental€Protection€Agencyóó,€925€F.€2d€385,€391€(11òòthóó€Cir.€1991)€(preliminaryÐ tÄ Ðinjunction€issued€by€court€later€found€on€appeal€to€lack€jurisdiction€resulted€in€party€being€wrongfullyÐ `° Ðenjoined,€and€trial€court€ð ðwas€obliged€to€award€damages€to€[enjoined€defendant]€unless€good€reasonsÐ L œ Ðexisted€to€deny€such€an€award.ðð).€€This€approach€furthers€€Federal€Rule€65(c)ððs€underlying€purpose.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐòòSee€Hoechst€Diafoil€Co.,óó€174€F.3d€at€421.Ô‡XµãXXX5ÐÔÐ $ t ÐÌà ½ àThe€Ninth€Circuit€has€stated€that€a€majority€of€federal€circuits:€Ð  P  ÐÌà8 ½ àhold€there€is€a€rebuttable€presumption€that€a€wrongfully€enjoined€party€is€entitled€toÐ à0  Ðhave€the€bond€executed€and€recover€provable€damages€up€to€the€amount€of€the€bond.€Ð Ð  ÐòòSee,€e.g.,€National€Kidney€Patients€Ass'n€v.€Sullivan,óó€958€F.2d€1127,€1134€(D.C.€Cir.Ð À  Ð1992)€(a€ð ðdefendant€injured€by€a€wrongfully€issued€preliminary€injunction€isÐ °  Ðpresumptively€entitled€to€recovery€on€the€injunction€bondðð),€òòcert.€denied,€óó€506€U.S.Ð  ð  Ð1049,€113€S.Ct.€966,€122€L.Ed.2d€122€(1993).Ðà½Ð ½Ð  ÐÌòòNintendoóó,€16€F.3d€at€1036„37.€€The€Ninth€Circuit€also€expressed€its€approval€of€that€presumption,Ð pÀ Ðstating€its€belief€that€the€rule€is€sound.Ð `° ÐÌà8 ½ àBy€adhering€to€this€standard,€the€party€enjoined€will€usually€recover€damages,€thusÐ @ Ðdiscouraging€parties€from€requesting€injunctions€based€on€tenuous€legal€grounds.€€òòSee€Ð 0€ ÐCoyne-Delaney€Co.€v.€Capital€Dev.€Bd.óó,€717€F.2d€385,€392€(7th€Cir.1983)€("...€[thisÐ  p Ðtest]€discourages€the€seeking€of€preliminary€injunctions€on€flimsy€(though€notÐ ` Ðnecessarily€frivolous)€grounds.").€€Furthermore,€a€presumption€that€damages€will€beÐ P Ðawarded€from€the€bond€assures€district€court€judges€that€defendants€will€receiveÐ ð@ Ðcompensation€for€their€damages€in€cases€where€it€is€later€determined€a€party€wasÐ à0 Ðwrongfully€enjoined.€€òòSee€Note,€Recovery€for€Wrongful€Interlocutory€InjunctionsÐ Ð  ÐUnder€€Rule€65(c),óó€99€Harv.€L.€Rev.€828,€838€n.€36€(1986).€€Moreover,€demands€onÐ À Ðjudicial€resources€may€be€relieved€to€some€extent,€because€a€defendant€who€canÐ °  Ðrecover€damages€against€a€preliminary€injunction€bond€will€be€less€likely€to€file€aÐ  !ð Ðseparate€malicious€prosecution€action.€€òòSee€generally€Note,€Interlocutory€InjunctionsÐ "à  Ðand€the€Injunction€Bond,óó€73€Harv.€L.€Rev.€333€(1959).€€Finally,€this€standard€providesÐ €#Ð! Ðan€equitable€means€by€which€courts€can€decline€to€impose€damages€on€the€rare€partyÐ p$À" Ðwho€has€lost€a€case€on€the€merits€but€nevertheless€should€not€suffer€the€execution€ofÐ `%° # Ðthe€preliminary€injunction€bond.ÐP& !$½Ð ½Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€at€1037.Ð 0(€#& ÐÌà ½ àThe€Railroads€initiated€this€action€and€obtained€a€temporary€restraining€order€on€the€basis€ofÐ *`%( Ða€complaint€in€which€they€asserted€the€Harakases€were€encroaching€on€a€right„of„way€owned€by€theÐ +P&) ÐRailroads€and€that€the€Harakases€were€willfully€violating€the€Railroadsðð€property€rights,€ð ðthey€beingÐ ð+@'* Ðfully€informed€of€the€facts€concerning€the€property.ðð€€The€Railroads€originally€relied€on€a€deed€toÐ ° Ðshow€their€ownership€of€the€purported€right„of„way.€€The€Harakases€employed€a€title€examiner€whoÐ  ð Ðfound€the€deed€did€not€cover€the€land€in€dispute.€€The€Railroads€were€unable€to€find€any€proof€thatÐ à Ða€right„of„way€across€the€Harakasesðð€land€had€been€obtained€by€eminent€domain.€€By€trial,€theÐ €Ð ÐRailroads€were€relying€on€a€notation,€ð ðCharter€width€claimed€under€decisions€of€Tennessee€courts.ðð€Ð pÀ ÐThe€trial€court€determined€that€the€Railroads€had€an€easement€right„of„way€ð ðto€the€extent€needed€forÐ ` ° ÐRailroad€operations.ðð€€It€was€undisputed€that€the€Harakasesðð€house€had€not€interfered€with€theÐ P   Ðoperations€of€the€railroad.Ð @  ÐÌà ½ àBased€upon€these€facts,€it€seems€clear€that€the€TRO€and€the€temporary€injunction€were€grantedÐ  p  Ðon€the€basis€of€allegations€which€were€later€shown€to€be€inaccurate.€€Because€the€house€has€neverÐ `  Ðencroached€upon€any€existing€property€interest€of€the€Railroads,€the€Harakases€were€always€entitledÐ P  Ðto€build€the€house€on€their€land.€Further,€it€is€difficult€to€see€how€the€Railroads€faced€the€threat€ofÐ ð@  Ðirreparable€harm€since,€if€they€had€successfully€proved€their€property€interest€as€they€alleged€it,€theÐ à0  ÐHarakases€could€have€been€forced€to€remove€the€house.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€the€Harakases€wereÐ Ð  Ðwrongfully€enjoined€or€restrained€within€the€meaning€of€Rule€65.05.€€€Accordingly,€€the€trial€court'sÐ À Ðdecision€not€to€award€damages€arising€from€the€injunction€is€reversed.Ð ° ÐÌÔ#†X5ÐXXXµãMP#Ôà ½ àWe€do€not€read€òòHolderóó€or€the€federal€cases€as€holding€that€every€preliminary€injunction€whichÐ à Ðis€subsequently€dissolved€constitutes€a€wrongfully€issued€injunction€within€the€meaning€of€Tenn.€R.Ð |Ì ÐCiv.€P.€65.05,€and€we€do€not€so€hold.€€€Whether€a€party€has€been€€wrongfully€restrained€can€beÐ h¸ Ðdetermined€by€the€facts€in€each€case€and,€in€part,€by€reference€to€the€criteria€for€the€issuance€of€aÐ T¤ Ðtemporary€injunction,€such€as€those€set€forth€in€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€65.04(2):€Ð @ ÐÌà8 ½ àA€temporary€injunction€may€be€granted€during€the€pendency€of€an€action€if€it€is€clearlyÐ h Ðshown€by€verified€complaint,€affidavit€or€other€evidence€that€the€movant's€rights€areÐ T Ðbeing€or€will€be€violated€by€an€adverse€party€and€the€movant€will€suffer€immediateÐ ð@ Ðand€irreparable€injury,€loss€or€damage€pending€a€final€judgment€in€the€action,€or€thatÐ Ü, Ðthe€acts€or€omissions€of€the€adverse€party€will€tend€to€render€such€final€judgmentÐ È Ðineffectual.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×д½Ð ½Ð  ÐÌà ½ àSituations€exist€where€the€initial€seeking€and€issuance€of€a€temporary€restraining€order€orÐ Œ!Ü Ðtemporary€injunction€were€appropriate,€and€meet€these€criteria,€but€the€court€nonetheless€declines€toÐ x"È  Ðissue€a€permanent€injunction.€The€Harakasesðð€situation€is€not€one€of€those.Ð d#´! ÐÌà ½ àThe€Railroads€make€two€arguments€that€the€Harakases€are€not€entitled€to€damages€or€to€collectÐ <%Œ # Ðon€the€injunction€bond.€€The€first€is€that€the€Railroads€agreed€to€lift€the€injunction€so€long€as€its€oneÐ (&x!$ Ðhundred€(100)€foot€easement€was€recognized.€€The€Railroadsðð€contention€in€this€regard€can€beÐ ° Ðconsidered€an€argument€that€any€damages€suffered€by€the€Harakases€due€to€the€delay€were€not€causedÐ œì Ðby€the€injunction.€€òòSeeóó€€òòDiversified€Equities,€Inc.€v.€Warrenóó,€617€S.W.2d€171,€172€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ˆØ Ð1981)€(the€only€damages€allowable€were€those€that€proximately€resulted€from€the€issuance€of€theÐ tÄ Ðinjunction).Ô‡XµãXXX5ÐÔ€The€record€shows,€however,€that€the€Railroads€had€no€title€to€the€right„of„way,Ð `° Ðnotwithstanding€the€allegations€in€their€complaint,€and€were€not€entitled€to€the€unconditional€oneÐ ` ° Ðhundred€(100)€foot€easement€they€claimed.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†X5ÐXXXµã“l#ÔÔ‡XµãXXX5ÐÔ€€The€Railroadsðð€easement€right„of„way€was€limited€"toÐ P   Ðthe€extent€needed€for€railroad€operations,€not€to€exceed€100€feet€on€either€side€of€the€center€line€ofÐ @  Ðthe€track."€€Ô#†X5ÐXXXµã-n#ÔÔ‡XµãXXX5ÐÔTherefore,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€Harakases€were€under€some€duty€to€accept€theÐ 0 € ÐRailroadsðð€offer,€which€involved€agreeing€that€the€Railroads€had€a€greater€property€interest€than€theyÐ  p  Ðwere€found€to€possess,€in€order€to€have€the€injunction€dissolved.€Ô#†X5ÐXXXµãEo#Ô€Moreover,€it€does€not€appear€thatÐ `  Ðthe€Railroads€made€any€kind€of€offer€in€this€regard€until€the€case€was€tried€on€March€18,€months€afterÐ `  Ðthe€TRO€was€sought€and€issued.€Under€these€circumstances,€where€damages€arose€due€to€the€delayÐ üL  Ðcaused€by€the€restraining€order€and€injunction,€we€believe€Rule€65.05€authorizes€recovery.Ð è8  ÐÌà ½ àThe€Railroads€further€argue€that€damages€are€inappropriate€because€they€commenced€theÐ À Ðunderlying€action"in€the€interest€of€both€parties"€so€that€the€issue€of€the€width€of€the€right„of„wayÐ ¬ü Ðcould€be€resolved.€€They€also€assert€that€"the€injunction€was€issued€as€much€for€€.€.€.€[the€Harakases']Ð ˜è Ðprotection€as€for€the€plaintiffsðð."€€The€Railroadsðð€counsel€stated€that:Ð „Ô ÐÌà8 ½ àExcept€for€the€fact€that€when€this€started€we€did€not€consider€asking€for€the€restrainingÐ \¬ Ðorder€as€being€anything€against€their€interest€because€„„€I€mean,€let's€concede€for€theÐ H˜ Ðpoint€of€argument€that€if€it's€property€that's€not€presently€being€used€for€railroadÐ 4„ Ðpurposes€they€can€build€a€house€on€it.€€But€they've€got€a€horrible€cloud€on€the€title€.€.Ð  p Ð.€Who's€going€to€buy€that€house€or€who's€going€to€ever€finance€a€house€like€that€if€aÐ  \ Ðrailroad€can€decide€we€want€to€put€a€spur€there€or€water€tank€there,€or€if€it's€a€safetyÐ øH Ðhazard€for€a€house€to€be€that€close€to€the€track€at€this€particular€location.€.€.€Ô‡XµãXXX5ÐÔÐä4½Ð ½Ð  ÐÌà ½ àThese€arguments€ignore€the€purpose€of€Rule€65.05:€to€reimburse€an€enjoined€party€for€harmÐ À Ðsuffered€due€to€an€improvidently€requested€and€issued€injunction.€€Without€questioning€the€sincerityÐ ° Ðof€the€Railroadsðð€concern€regarding€encroachment€on€what€it€presumed€to€be€its€right„of„way,€theÐ   ð Ðissue€of€the€use€of€the€land€could€have€been€determined€in€a€declaratory€judgment€action€seekingÐ !à Ðpermanent€injunctive€relief€without€the€extraordinary€remedy€of€restraining€the€Harakases€fromÐ €"Ð  Ðfurther€construction€during€the€pendency€of€the€litigation.€€Even€when€faced€with€evidence€that€theÐ p#À! Ðdeed€originally€relied€on€was€not€applicable€to€the€land€at€issue,€the€Railroads€continued€to€resist€theÐ `$°" Ðlifting€of€the€injunction.€€While€we€agree€with€both€the€Railroads€and€the€trial€court€that€the€HarakasesÐ P%  # Ðwould€have€been€at€risk€of€losing€additional€time€and€money€expended€in€further€construction€of€theÐ ° Ðhouse,€once€they€were€put€on€notice€of€the€Railroadsðð€claims,€we€cannot€agree€that€restraining€themÐ  ð Ðfrom€proceeding€in€face€of€those€risks€was€an€appropriate€burden€for€the€Railroads€to€undertake€forÐ à Ðthe€Harakasesðð€own€good.€€We€cannot€agree€that€prohibiting€the€Harakases€from€continuing€to€buildÐ €Ð Ðwas€in€their€best€interest,€but€even€if€it€had€been,€we€think€the€Harakases€were€entitled€to€make€theirÐ pÀ Ðown€decision€regarding€their€best€interests€as€long€as€they€did€not€infringe€on€the€Railroadsðð€rightsÐ ` ° Ðor€threaten€irreparable€harm.€€The€Harakases€could€just€as€easily€argue€that€they€acted€in€theÐ P   ÐRailroadsðð€best€interest€in€seeking€to€have€the€injunction€dissolved€while€the€Railroads€risked€liabilityÐ @  Ðon€the€injunction€bond.€€In€any€event,€we€are€not€persuaded€that€the€ð ðacting€in€the€other€partyððs€bestÐ 0 € Ðinterestðð€argument€is€relevant€to€the€issue€of€whether€a€party€was€wrongfully€restrained.Ð  p  ÐÌÔ#†X5ÐXXXµãûv#Ôà ½ àRecovery€on€an€injunction€bond€does€not€require€a€showing€of€bad€faith€by€the€party€seekingÐ P  Ðand€obtaining€the€injunction.Ð ì<  ÐÌà8 ½ àThe€bond€requirement€as€a€prerequisite€for€interlocutory€injunctions€is€more€than€aÐ Ä  Ðprovision€for€securing€otherwise€recoverable€damages€incurred€by€an€enjoined€party.€Ð ° ÐUnder€such€traditional€tort€remedies€as€an€action€for€malicious€prosecution€or€abuseÐ œì Ðof€process,€a€person€who€suffers€damages€as€a€result€of€litigation€may€be€unable€toÐ ˆØ Ðrecover€because€of€his€inability€to€make€a€sufficient€showing€of€the€elements€of€a€tort.€Ð tÄ ÐThe€bond€required€under€Rule€65.05,€therefore,€provides€an€enjoined€party€with€aÐ `° Ðremedy€against€the€bond€itself€even€though€the€party€who€obtained€the€injunctionÐ Lœ Ðotherwise€had€no€personal€liability.€.€.€.€€Recovery€generally€does€not€require€aÐ 8ˆ Ðshowing€that€the€party€who€obtained€the€injunction€acted€maliciously€or€tortiously,€butÐ $t Ðonly€that€the€party€enjoined€was€deprived€of€rights€to€which€he€was€entitled€and€theÐ ` Ðinjunction€was,€therefore,€erroneous.ÐüL½Ð ½Ð  ÐÌRobert€Banks,€Jr.€&€June€F.€Entman,€òòTennessee€Civil€Procedureóó€€ðð4„3(l)€(1999).€€€In€òòTaylor€v.€Morrisóó,Ð Ô$ ÐNo.€01A01„9804„CH„00211,€1999€WL€675138€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€€Sept.€1,€1999)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð À Ð11€application€filed),€this€court€recently€discussed€the€two€types€of€actions€available€for€wrongfulÐ ¬ü Ðinjunctions€and€made€clear€that€in€an€action€on€an€injunction€bond€ð ðthe€defendant€in€the€originalÐ ˜è Ðinjunction€suit€need€only€show€that€he€was€wrongfully€restrained€or€enjoined,ðð€distinguishing€thoseÐ „ Ô Ðelements€necessary€for€recovery€from€the€requirements€applicable€to€the€other€type€of€action.€€òòTayloróó,Ð p!À Ð1999€WL€675138€at€*3.€€ð ðThe€second€type€of€wrongful€injunction€action€is€in€the€nature€of€aÐ \"¬  Ðmalicious€prosecution€action.€€In€order€to€recover€under€this€theory,€the€defendant€in€the€originalÐ H#˜! Ðinjunction€action€must€show€not€only€that€he€was€wrongfully€restrained€or€enjoined,€but€that€theÐ 4$„" Ðplaintiff€acted€maliciously€and€without€probable€cause€in€seeking€the€injunction.ðð€òòId.óó€(citationsÐ  %p # Ðomitted).€€Thus,€€the€fact€that€the€Railroads€may€have€acted€in€good€faith€is€not€sufficient€to€relieveÐ  &\!$ Ðthem€of€liability€in€this€action€on€the€injunction€bond.Ð ø&H"% ÐÌà ½ àSimilarly,€we€cannot€accept€the€Railroadsðð€contention€that€the€Harakases€are€entitled€to€onlyÐ Ð( $' Ðnominal€damages.€€For€this€proposition,€the€Railroads€€rely€solely€on€òòSouthern€Ry.€Co.€v.€Pardueóó,€123Ð ¼) %( ÐTenn.€376,€131€S.W.€862€(1910).€€In€that€case,€the€defendant,€who€was€enjoined€from€constructingÐ ¨*ø%) Ða€building€on€the€land€at€issue,€testified€that€he€discontinued€his€project€due€to€the€commencementÐ ”+ä&* Ðof€the€lawsuit,€because€he€wanted€the€title€settled€before€he€improved€the€property.€€Based€on€thisÐ ° Ðtestimony,€this€court€reasoned€that€the€defendant€was€not€deterred€from€building€by€the€injunction,Ð œì Ð"but€by€the€fact€of€the€adverse€claim,€and€by€the€suit€itself;€that€is€to€say,€after€he€was€made€aware€ofÐ ˆØ Ðthe€controversy€he€would€not€have€built,€or€proceeded€further€with€his€building€operations,€until€thatÐ tÄ Ðcontroversy€over€the€title€was€settled€by€decree€of€the€court."€€òòPardueóó,€123€Tenn.€at€379,€131€S.W.2dÐ `° Ðat€863.€€Because€the€wrongfully€issued€injunction€did€not€cause€the€damages,€the€defendant€wasÐ L œ Ðawarded€only€nominal€damages.€òòSee€id.,óó€123€Tenn.€at€379,€131€S.W.2d€at€863„64.€€€Thus,€€òòPardueÐ 8 ˆ Ðóósimply€stands€for€the€well„settled€proposition€that€damages€are€limited€to€those€actually€caused€by€theÐ $ t Ðinjunctionòò.€€See€Diversified€Equities,€Inc.óó,€617€S.W.2d€at€172;€òòWiddicombe€v.€McGuireóó,€221€Tenn.Ð  ` Ð601,€608,€429€S.W.2d€815,€€818€(1968).€Ô‡XµãXXX5ÐÔ€Here,€the€Harakases€have€presented€evidence€through€SaraÐ ü L  ÐHarakas's€affidavit€€that€their€damages€arose€from€the€operation€of€the€injunction€itself,€and€notÐ ü L  Ðbecause€they€chose€to€cease€construction,€and€they€have€claimed€actual€damages.€€òòPardueóó€does€notÐ ì<  Ðlimit€their€recovery€òòóóto€nominal€damages.Ð Ü,  ÐÌà ½ àFinally,€the€Railroads€contend€that€attorneyððs€fees€may€not€be€awarded€as€damages,€relyingÐ ¼  Ðon€òòStringfield€v.€Hirschóó,€94€Tenn.€425,€29€S.W.€609€(1895).€In€that€case,€our€Supreme€Court€stated:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8 ½ àWe€think€that€the€analogies€of€the€law,€as€well€as€the€soundest€public€policy,€demandÐ ŒÜ Ðthat€counsel€fees€in€suits€upon€contracts,€or€for€damages€for€torts,€or€upon€attachmentsÐ |Ì Ðor€injunctions,€should€not€be€regarded€as€a€proper€element€of€damages,€even€whereÐ l¼ Ðthey€are€capable€of€being€apportioned€so€as€to€show€the€amount€incurred€for€theÐ \¬ Ðattachments€and€injunctions€as€separate€and€distinct€from€the€other€services€necessaryÐ Lœ Ðin€the€case.€€It€is€not€sound€public€policy€to€place€a€penalty€on€the€right€to€litigate;€thatÐ <Œ Ðthe€defeated€party€must€pay€the€fees€of€counsel€for€his€successful€opponent€in€anyÐ ,| Ðcase,€and€especially€since€it€throws€wide€the€doors€of€temptation€for€the€opposingÐ l Ðparty€and€his€counsel€to€swell€the€fees€to€undue€proportions,€and,€in€cases€ofÐ  \ Ðattachment€and€injunction,€to€apportion€them€arbitrarily€between€the€fees€pertainingÐ üL Ðproperly€to€the€attachment€and€injunction€and€those€relating€to€the€merits€of€the€case.Ðì<½Ð ½Ð  ÐÌòòStringfield,óóÔ#†X5ÐXXXµãú#ÔÔ‡XµãXXX5ÐÔ€94€Tenn.€at€437„38,€29€S.W.€at€613.€€There€are€no€Tennessee€cases€since€òòStringfieldÐ Ì Ðóóaltering€the€rule€established€therein,€andÔ#†X5ÐXXXµãj˜#ÔÔ‡XµãXXX5ÐÔ€òòóóÔ#†X5ÐXXXµãE™#Ôthe€federal€courts€also€decline€to€award€attorney's€fees€underÐ ¼  ÐFed.€R.€Civ.€P.€65(c).Ô‡XµãXXX5ÐÔ׃*×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†X5ÐXXXµã÷™#Ô€òòóóÔ‡XµãXXX5ÐÔ€Thus,€the€Harakases€are€not€entitled€to€recover€their€attorneyððs€fees€from€theÐ ¼!  Ðinjunction€bond.€€However,€they€have€presented€evidence€of€almost€$10,000€in€losses€arising€fromÐ ¼"   Ðthe€wrongfully€issued€injunction,€excluding€attorneyððs€fees,€while€the€bond€was€for€$5,000.€€Since€weÐ ¬#ü! Ðhave€determined€that€the€Harakases€are€entitled€to€damages€resulting€from€the€restraining€order€andÐ œ$ì" Ðtemporary€injunction€and€are€entitled€to€enforce€the€injunction€bond,€we€remand€to€the€trial€court€toÐ Œ%Ü # Ðdetermine€the€proper€amount€of€damages.Ð |&Ì!$ Ðâ âÐ l'¼"% Ðà ½ àAccordingly,€we€reverse€the€trial€court's€denial€of€the€Harakasesðð€motion€to€enforce€liabilityÐ ° Ðâ âon€the€injunction€bond.€€This€case€is€remanded€for€a€determination€of€damages€and€for€such€furtherÐ  ð Ðproceedings€as€may€be€necessary.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€Appellees,€South€CentralÐ à ÐTennessee€Railroad€Authority€and€South€Central€Tennessee€Railroad€Company,€for€which€executionÐ €Ð Ðmay€issue€if€necessary.Ô#†X5ÐXXXµã“š#ÔÔ‡XµãXXX5ÐÔÐ pÀ ÐÔ#†X5ÐXXXµã~Ÿ#ÔÌÌÌà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u à___________________________________________Ð $ t Ðà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGE