WPC$0 sK=/1G(g{h_ϩ3(djF ERsWn37 B-Q `]C P>+'bvCO&]ӗvfvV8& ߔL^<Vf)S2$p[!G5ă.a<9C -uȅ߅<mwe$ǕA]Wf؟<0keظԞ>{TB|,w,P Rp9|$BR$;4bxe+Kn=%Eg^-h{CR 8@ %r51n쒸v ҁb3X%^ %w%4%%b%% m% 0%% 0D&&&&&&&&((((((((((((((((((((((( 0!+!+!+!+ B , , 0), D3, D-- 0K---- ASx-- 0. 0D5/ Ay/HP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,02G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2   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.wpt2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  ӁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 522+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2  <:Default ParaXXXXXX\  `&Times New Romanb) uV):i3|x- -U0;;.header   !XXX   !XXX(#$  0    Ry$      1  <  _)z <Atthetimeoftrial,thecorporationscharterhadbeenrevoked._Hockaday_,asthesoleshareholderofthe  corporation,wassubstitutedinitsplaceastheplaintiffinthissuit.#< )z~#  Ry$      2  <  _)z <Thetrialcourtmadeseveralotherfindingsoffactrelatingtotheownershipofcertainpersonalproperty.Freels  doesnotargueonappealthatthesefindingsareerroneous.#< )z~#ԀWhile_Hockaday_Ԁarguesinhisbriefthatthetrialcourtwas | correctastothepersonalproperty,wedonotaddressthepersonalpropertyasitwasnotraisedbyeitherpartyonthis P  appeal.(|G2y$ !.8dd8         0  < d(|3+$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3+$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8XXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE# #Ԉ ,   October4,2000Session X XX #XX#JIM_HOCKADAY_v.DENNIS_FREELS_XX   ` @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforMorganCounty  h @@No.9917FrankV.Williams,III,Chancellor  X FILEDNOVEMBER2,_2000_  8  @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.E199902719_COA_ԄR3CV '  AV) ` dE<` A      #XXӣ#XX)X>XXXThisisanactionforconversionofa$10,169.59check.Respondingtotheplaintiffsallegations,the  defendantclaimedhehadauthoritytonegotiatethecheckbecauseheandtheplaintiffhadorally  enteredintoapartnershiporjointventure.Followingabenchtrial,thecourtbelowfoundthatno  suchrelationshipexistedandthatthedefendanthadwrongfullyconvertedthecheck.Weaffirm.#XXX)X>M##XX.#XX z  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt V Affirmed;CaseRemanded  F   #Xӌ#XX.CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM._Goddard_, &v _P.J._,andHerschelP.Franks,J.,joined. f ThomasM._Leveille_,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,Dennis_Freels_. F HenryClayBarry,Lebanon,Tennessee,fortheappellee,Jim_Hockaday_. & a OPINION #XXӐ#XX   #XX #XX    I. "!  )X>XXX  Theplaintiff,Jim_Hockaday_,isinthebusinessofmanufacturingandsellinghydraulic ^% $ mowers.Atalltimesrelevanttotheissuesinthiscase,_Hockaday_Ԁwasconductingbusinessthrough J&!% hiscorporation,RotaryManufacturingofTennessee._9 3#  1      _ԀThedefendant,Dennis_Freels_,isinthe 6'"& businessoffabricatingpartsforequipment#XXX)X> #)X>XXX,andoperatesunderthenameofLibertyMachine&Tool. "(r#'   )^$(   ThepartiesmetinMay,1997,throughamutualbusinessacquaintance.Theysubsequently   agreedtobuildfourmowers,buttheyfailedtoreducetheirunderstandingstowriting.The  testimony,especiallyasitrelatestothepartiesbusinessrelationship,isinsharpconflict.According  to_Hockaday_stestimony,heagreedtopay_Freels_Ԁforacertainnumberofhoursandacertainprice t perpartforeachmower.Attrial,_Hockaday_Ԁtestifiedthathetold_Freels_Ԁthat ` 8  8`   ifyouwillbuildthesecomponentsforme,andIhadaprice,man 8  hours,costonmaterial,everything,ifyoucandothat,Iwillcomeup $ t toyourplaceandbethereandsupervisebecauseifyoutrytobuildit  ` withoutthefullknowledgeofwhatitactuallydoesafteritsallput  L  together,thereistoomuchroomforerrorandmostlikelyyouwould  8  notgetitright.$ ` x` x Instarkcontrast,_Freels_Ԁtestifiedthatheand_Hockaday_Ԁdidnotdiscussacertainpricepermoweror   anhourlyrate,butratheragreedtoequallyshareanyprofitremainingafterpaymentofexpenses.   Hetestifiedattrialthatthepartieswerepartners,sayingthat   8  8`   [_t]he_Ԁonlythingrightfromthestartthatwaseveragreedonwashe \ toldmehehadfourmowerssold,webuildthesefourmowersand H splittheprofit,thatswhathesaid.4` x` x   InMay,1997,thepartiesundertooktobuildfourmowers,andtheycontinuedthisproject  \ untilJuneorJuly,1997.Thefirstmowerwassoldfor$10,169.59anddeliveredinearlyJuneto H _McNeil_ԀTractorinMississippi.Thepartiesdisagreeastowhathappenedtothe$10,169.59check 4 _McNeil_ԀTractorsentto_Hockaday_._Hockaday_Ԁtestifiedhereceiveditinthemailandthen threwit   ontheseatofhistruckonhiswayto_Freels_placeofbusiness.Hetestifiedthathethenforgotabout   ituntil,aftertalkingwitharepresentativeof_McNeil_,helearnedthat_Freels_Ԁhadendorsedthecheck  himselfanddepositeditto_Freels_bankaccount._Hockaday_Ԁtestifiedthathedidnotgive_Freels_  permissiontonegotiatethecheck.    _Freels_Ԁtestifiedhedidnottakethecheckfrom_Hockaday_struck.Hesaidthat_Hockaday_Ԁgave X  himthechecksometimeinJuly,1997,andtoldhimtouseittopayasteelsupplier.Hestatedhe D! receivednomoneyfromthe_McNeil_Ԁtransaction,anddisavowedreceivinganyprofitoutofthe 0"  subjectcheck. #l!   _Hockaday_ԀfiledsuitonAugust26,1997,allegingthat_Freels_Ԁwrongfullyconvertedthe $D # $10,169.57check.Followingabenchtrial,thecourtbelowagreed,specificallyfindingthatthe %0!$ partieswerenotpartnersorengagedinajointventure.; 3#  2       &"%      II.  b  Inthisnonjurycase,ourreviewisdenovoupontherecord,withapresumptionof  correctnessastothetrialcourtsfactualdeterminations,unlesstheevidencepreponderates t otherwise.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d); Wrightv.CityofKnoxville ,898S.W.2d177,181(Tenn.1995); `  UnionCarbideCorp.v._Huddleston_ ,854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn.1993).Thetrialcourtsconclusions L  oflawarerevieweddenovowithnopresumptionofcorrectness. Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp. , 8  919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996); Presleyv.Bennett ,860S.W.2d857,859(Tenn.1993).Ourde $ t novoreviewissubjecttothewellestablishedprinciplethatthetrialcourtisinthebestpositionto  ` assessthecredibilityofthewitnesses;accordingly,suchdeterminationsareentitledtogreatweight  L  onappeal. _Massengale_Ԁv._Massengale_ ,915S.W.2d818,819(Tenn.Ct.App.1995); Bowmanv.  8  Bowman ,836S.W.2d563,566(Tenn.Ct.App.1991). $  1  ! !X!)X>XX)X>  ?( 4 <DL!?  1$  III.1$s%݌   Ќ   XX)X>XX)X>  g%  Thefirstissueraisedonappealiswhetherthetrialcourterredinfindingthatnopartnership   orjointventureexisted._Freels_Ԁarguesthatheand_Hockaday_Ԁwereinvolvedeitherinapartnership p orajointventureandthat_Freels_negotiationofthecheckwasthereforeauthorized. \   Apartnershipisdefinedin_T.C.A._Ԁ611105(a)(Supp.1999)as anassociationoftwo(2) 4 ormorepersonstocarryonas_coowners_Ԁabusinessforprofit8.Apartnershipcanonlybecreated  p pursuanttoacontractofpartnership,thoughsuchanagreementmaybeeitherexpressorimplied.  \  Bassv.Bass ,814S.W.2d38,41(Tenn.1991).Todeterminewhetherapartnershipexists,courts H mustascertaintheintentionoftheparties. Id .Intheabsenceofawrittenagreement,therequisite 4 intentionisthatwhichisdeduciblefromthepartiesconduct. Wyattv.Brown ,281S.W.2d64,67   (Tenn.Ct.App.1955).Thepartiesneedonlyintend todothethingswhichconstitutea   partnership. Bass ,814S.W.2dat41.Apartnershipresultsiftheparties placetheirmoney,assets,  labor,orskillincommercewiththeunderstandingthatprofitswillbesharedbetweenthem.... Id .  Itisnotnecessarythatthepartiesintendtoactuallyformapartnershiporevenknowthatthelegal  resultoftheiractionsistocreateapartnership. Id .Accordingly,theterminologyusedbytheparties l todescribetheirbusinessrelationshipisoflittleimport. Id . X    Thedeterminationofwhetherapartnershipexistsmustbemade uponconsiderationofall 0"  relevantfacts,actions,andconductoftheparties, id .,andtheburdenofproofrestsontheparty #l! seekingtoestablishtheexistenceofapartnership. Mullinsv.Evans ,308S.W.2d494,498(Tenn. $X" Ct.App.1957). Generally,whatwillconstituteapartnershipisamatteroflaw,butwhethera $D # partnershipexistsunderconflictingevidenceisoneoffact. Wyatt ,281S.W.2dat68. %0!$   AjointventurehasbeendescribedbytheSupremeCourtas somethinglikeapartnership, '#& foramorelimitedperiodoftime,andamorelimitedpurpose. Fainv.OConnell ,909S.W.2d (#' 790,792(Tenn.1995).Jointventuresaresubjecttotherulesoflawthat_govern_Ԁpartnerships. )$(  FederatedStoresRealty,Inc.v._Huddleston_ ,852S.W.2d206,212(Tenn.1992). |*%)  h+&*   _Freels_Ԁarguesthatthetrialcourterredinfindingthatthepartieswerenotpartners.More  specifically,heassertsthat_Hockaday_stestimonyaloneestablishesthat_Hockaday_Ԁand_Freels_  combinedtheirefforts,property,money,skill,andknowledgeforthepurposeofearningaprofit,and  thatthisfactindicatesthatthepartieswerepartnersor,ataminimum,wereinvolvedinajoint t venture. `   Thecriticalquestioninthislitigationiswhetherthepartiesintendedtosharetheprofits 8  receivedfromthesaleofthemowers.Onthispoint,_Freels_Ԁtestifiedthattheydidsoagree.Onthe $ t otherhand,_Hockaday_Ԁtestifiedthattheydidnotagreetosharetheprofits,butratheragreedthat  ` _Hockaday_Ԁwouldpay_Freels_Ԁforacertainnumberofhoursandacertainpriceperpartforhiswork  L  inconnectionwitheachmower.Becausetheevidenceonthispointsosharplyconflicts,theissue  8  narrowstoadeterminationofthecredibilityofthewitnesses.Thetrialcourtfoundthefactsas $  testifiedtoby_Hockaday_.Thereisnothingintherecordtopromptustorejectthisdetermination.   Aswehavestatedmanytimes,atrialcourtscredibilitydeterminationsareentitledtogreatweight   onappeal.See _Massengale_ ,915S.W.2dat819; Bowman ,836S.W.2dat566.     Withrespectto_Freels_argumentthat_Hockaday_stestimonyaloneestablishesthattheparties p werepartners,wedisagree.Whilethereisevidenceintherecord,intheformof_Hockaday_s \ testimony,tendingtosupportthenotionthatthepartiescombinedtheireffortsinproducingand H deliveringthemowers,thereisabsolutelynothingin_Hockaday_stestimonyestablishingthatthe 4 partiesweretosharetheprofitsgeneratedbythesesales.Wethereforecannotsaythattheevidence  p preponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsconclusionthatthepartieswerenotpartnersorjointventurers.  \   IV. 4 =  Atoralargument,_Freels_,throughhiscounsel,acknowledgedthatifweagreedwiththetrial   courtontheissueofwhethertherewasapartnershiporjointventure,wewouldbecompelledto  affirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.Accordingly,becauseweagreewiththetrialcourts  determinationthatthepartieswerenotpartnersorengagedinajointventure,wewillnotaddress  _Freels_secondissueregardinganaccounting. l   V. D! p@  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Thecaseisremandedforenforcementofthe #l! judgmentandforcollectionofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw.Costsonappeal $X" aretaxedtotheappellant. $D # #XXX)X>h#   `     h     ___________________________________ ($'    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE