ÿWPC¦ 4# èU>ó %1 0(74_s‚UNŠ 0lØ 0DDLˆ 0JÔbw@& 0Tf 0^º 0h 0r€ 0|ò 0†n 0ô 1u„ 0dù B] AQz ÆË 0D‘ 0@Õ 0D D/Y Bˆ D3¥ U6Ø U> B)L DCu AM¸ U*&/v~UvÓÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX($¡¡ê‚_# x°°3|xº(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô- ù- £D¤ ¥U¦§U¨D©DªU«Ó€µ2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d----7Border 1dd!#.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔÌÌJuly€1,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€»×XdÈXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€,ÔœÓ ` Ü‚XP ’X ÓÞ ÞÌIN€THE€MATTER€OF:à à)ÌTHE€ESTATE€OF€MARY€ARDELLE€GOWERà à)à àÌà àà à)ÌWILLIAM€STEVEN€JONES,€Executor€ofà à)Ìthe€Estate€of€Mary€Ardelle€Gower,à à)Ìà àà à)ÌÓ#` Ü‚XPôx‘X#Óà àProponent/Appellant,à à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà à)à à01„A„01„9710„CH„00605Ìv.à àà à)Ìà àà à)à àWayne€ChanceryÌTYSON€ROBERTSON,€BESSIE€LEWIS,à à)à àNo.€127„PÌÙ€!ÙßR€/1.A1-j|åþ\` ç `€€@ÿRßDANNY€GOBBELL,€PAT€HENKEL€andà à)ÌMARILYN€WHITTEN,à à)Ìà àà à)Ìà àContestants/Appellees.à à)Ìà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€,¼ÔCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY›€COURT€FOR€WAYNE€COUNTYÌÌAT€œWAYNESBORO,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€L.€JONES,€CHANCELLOR€ÌÓ ` Ü‚XœÈ“X ÓÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÔ€,XÔJERRY€SCOTTÌJOHN€KEAÌScott€&€KeaÌ110€City€Center€BuildingÌ100€East€Vine€StreetÌP.€O.€Box€1216ÌMurfreesboro,€Tennessee€€37133„1246Ìà àATTORNEYS€FOR€APPELLANTÌÔ€,¼ÔÌÔ€,XÔÌRANDY€HILLHOUSEÌHillhouse€&€HuddlestonÌ212€Pulaski€StreetÌP.€O.€Box€787ÌLawrenceburg,€Tennessee€€38464Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€APPELLEESÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€,¼ÔWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÑ7€ íM XXdìXdÈ7ÑÑ€ÑÓÓÓ  ÓòòÔ€,°ÔOPINIONóóÌÓ  ÓÓ#` Ü` ä œÈ“X#ÓÓ€ÓÔ€,¼Ôà àMary€Ardelle€Gower€died€on€August€11,€1995€in€Wayne€County,ÏTennessee€at€the€age€of€73.€€Her€will€was€offered€for€probate€by€WilliamÏSteven€Jones,€the€executor€therein€named€and€the€sole€beneficiary€of€the€will.ÌÌà àTyson€Robertson,€Bessie€Lewis,€Danny€Gobbell,€Pat€Henkel€andÏMarilyn€Whitten,€the€heirs€at€law€of€Mary€Ardelle€Gower€by€intestateÏsuccession€contested€the€will€before€the€Chancery€Court€of€Wayne€County,ÏTennessee€and€a€six€person€jury€on€three€grounds€to„wit:ÌÓ&` Ü` ä .œ ’X&ÓÓÓà8 à1.à àThe€will€was€not€executed€in€conformity€with€T.C.A.€ððÏ32„4„101€et€seq.Ìà8 à2.à àThe€testatrix€was€of€unsound€mind€at€the€time€of€theÏexecution€of€the€purported€will€on€January€19,€1995,€andÌà8 à3.à àThe€will€was€the€product€of€undue€influence€byÏWilliam€Steve€Jones€over€the€testatrix.€€Included€withinÏthe€issue€of€undue€influence€was€the€allegation€that€aÏconfidential€relationship€existed€between€William€SteveÏJones€and€Mary€Ardelle€Gower.ÌÌÓ€ÓÌà àThe€jury€returned€a€general€verdict€in€favor€of€the€contestants€ofÏthe€will€which€verdict€was€approved€by€the€trial€judge.ÌÌà àThe€proponent€of€the€will€appealed€asserting€two€issues€for€review:ÌÓÓà8 àI.à àThe€jury€instructions€mis„stated€the€law€and€misled€theÏjury€concerning€what€the€contestants€had€to€prove€inÏorder€to€establish€a€confidential€relationship€andÏessentially€charged€the€jury€with€determining€the€status€ofÏthe€law€regarding€confidential€relationships.ÌÌà8 àII.à àThe€jury€instructions€mis„stated€the€law€and€misled€theÏjury€regarding€the€elements€the€contestants€had€to€proveÏin€order€to€establish€a€presumption€of€undue€influence,Ïthereby€improperly€shifting€the€burden€of€proof€to€theÏproponent.ÌÌÓ€ÓÌà àIn€view€of€the€limited€issues€presented€on€appeal€a€detailedÏrecitation€of€facts€is€not€necessary.€€It€suffices€to€say€that€Mary€ArdelleÏGower€died€August€11,€1995€leaving€a€personal€estate€valued€at€$191,000.00Ïand€real€property€valued€at€$87,000.00.ÌÌà àOn€July€19,€1995€she€had€executed€a€will€prepared€by€DavidÏComer,€an€experienced€lawyer€in€Lawrence€County,€Tennessee.€€In€this€willÏshe€left€all€of€her€property€to€her€friend€William€Steven€Jones,€and€furtherÏprovided€in€part:ÌÓÓà8 àI€make€the€above€devise€and€bequest€with€the€fullÏrealization€that€my€surviving€bodily€heirs€are€excludedÏfrom€sharing€in€the€bounty€of€my€estate.€€I€do€this€notÏfrom€any€lack€of€love€or€affection€for€said€heirs,€butÏbecause€it€is€my€desire€that€my€friend,€William€StevenÏJones,€receive€the€bounty€of€my€estate€for€his€care€of€meÏduring€my€latter€years.ÌÌÓ€ÓÌà àWilliam€Steven€Jones€was€a€minister€in€the€Methodist€churchÏattended€by€Mary€Ardelle€Gower€and€had€befriended€her€in€the€last€years€ofÏher€life.€ÌÌà àIn€this€case€the€court€charged€the€jury€that€the€proponent€of€the€willÏhad€the€burden€of€proving€that€the€will€was€executed€in€conformity€withÏTennessee€law.€€No€objection€is€made€to€the€charge€of€the€court€in€thisÏrespect€and€no€issue€is€asserted€as€to€this€portion€of€the€charge€on€appeal.ÌÌà àThe€court€charged€the€jury€that€the€contestants€had€the€burden€ofÏproving€unsoundness€of€mind€of€the€testatrix.€€No€objection€to€this€portion€ofÏthe€charge€was€made€in€the€trial€court€and€no€issue€relating€thereto€isÏasserted€on€appeal.ÌÌà àThe€issues€on€appeal€asserted€by€the€appellant€relate€solely€to€theÏcharge€to€the€jury€concerning€undue€influence€and€confidential€relationship.€ÏSpecifically€€appellant€objects€to€the€portion€of€the€charge€stating:€€ÌÓÓà8 à.€.€.€If€the€person€in€the€dominant€or€controlling€role€is€anÏattorney€with€regard€to€a€client,€a€guardian€with€regard€toÏa€ward,€a€psychiatrist€with€regard€to€a€patient,€a€trustee€ofÏa€trust€fund€with€regard€to€the€beneficiary€of€that€trust.ÌÌà8 àAnd€in€some€cases€„„€and€I'm€not€expressing€an€opinionÏone€way€or€the€other€in€this€case.€€But€in€some€cases€aÏminister€or€a€clergyman€having€a€close€relationship€with€aÏmember€of€his€congregation€might€be€in€such€aÏrelationship.ÌÌà8 àBut€in€this€case,€please€understand€I€am€not€commentingÏon€the€evidence€or€on€the€facts€of€this€case.€€I€am€merelyÏexplaining€to€you€that€in€these€attorney/client,Ïtrustee/beneficiary,€guardian/ward€type€situations,€there€isÏa€confidential€relationship€established€as€a€matter€of€law.€à àà à€ÌÌà8 àFor€example,€if€Mr.€Comer€had€been€a€beneficiary€of€thisÏwill,€after€having€prepared€it€and€serving€as€her€attorneyÏfor€a€number€of€years,€I€could€have€instructed€you€as€aÍmatter€of€law€that€Mr.€Comer€was€in€a€confidentialÏrelationship€and€that€he€would€have€the€burden€of€provingÏthat€undue€influence€did€not€exist€and€that€she€gotÏindependent€advice€or€in€some€other€way€was€exercisingÏher€free€agency€and€will.ÌÌà8 àWhat€I'm€saying,€however,€is€that€while€the€jury€couldÏconclude€that€a€clergyman€is€in€that€role,€I€can€not€as€aÏmatter€of€law€say€that's€the€situation€in€this€case.€ÌÌÓ€ÓÌà àWhile€it€is€true€that€the€burden€rests€upon€the€trial€court€to€give€anÏaccurate€statement€of€the€law,€ò òòòStreet€v.€Calvertó óóó,€541€S.W.2d€576,€584Ï(Tenn.€1976),€it€is€likewise€true€that€perfection€in€the€charge€is€not€theÏcriterion€for€affirmance€or€reversal.€€ò òòòDavis€v.€Wilsonó óóó,€522€S.W.2d€872,Ï(Tenn.Ct.App.1974).€€As€stated€therein:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€complaints€in€regard€to€the€charge€and€omissionsÏtherefrom€are€not€entirely€unfounded.€€Seldom€is€a€chargeÏdelivered€to€a€jury€which€could€not€be€improved.€€It€isÏbetter€practice€for€the€trial€judge€to€reduce€his€charge€toÏwriting€before€delivery€and€to€carefully€compare€itsÏverbiage€with€that€of€the€special€requests€submitted€byÏcounsel€so€that€all€proper€words,€phrases€and€rules€may€beÏincluded.€€Nevertheless,€perfection€is€not€the€criterion€forÏaffirmance€or€reversal;€and€a€charge€which€states€the€lawÏwith€substantial€accuracy€and€fairly€submits€the€issues€toÏthe€jury€should€not€be€grounds€for€reversal.ÌÌ522€S.W.2d€872,€884.ÌÌÓ€ÓFor€a€fact€situation€similar€to€the€case€at€bar,€in€which€a€similar€juryÏinstruction€was€upheld€by€the€court,€see€ò òòòHale€v.€Bradley,€ó óóó817€S.W.2d€320,Ï(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).€ÌÌà àIn€another€context€this€court€has€held:ÌÓÓà8 àà à[7,€8]€€The€trial€court€is€the€jury's€sole€source€for€theÏlegal€principles€to€guide€their€deliberations.€€òòState€ex€rel.ÏMyers€v.€Brownóó,€209€Tenn.€141,€148„49,€351€S.W.2dÏ385,€388€(1961).€€Thus,€trial€courts€must€give€accurateÏinstructions€with€respect€to€the€parties'€respectiveÏtheories,€òòStreet€v.€Calvertóó,€541€S.W.2d€576,€584Ï(Tenn.1976),€and€must€frame€the€instructions€in€plainÏwords€that€average€jurors€will€understand.€€òòGross€v.ÏNashville€Gas€Coóó,€608€S.W.2D€860,€872€(Tenn.Ct.ÏApp.1980);€òòMartin€v.€CastnerKnott€Dry€Goods€Co.óó,€27ÏTenn.€App.€421,€431,€181€S.W.2D€638,€642€(1944).ÌÌà8 àà à[9]€€We€do€not€measure€jury€instructions€against€theÏstandard€of€perfection.€€òòDavis€v.€Wilsonóó,€522€S.W.2DÏ872,€884€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1974).€€Instead,€we€review€theÏentire€charge€just€as€the€jury€would,€òòMemphis€St.€Ry.€v.ÏWilsonóó,€108€Tenn.€618,€620,€69€S.W.€265,€265€(1901);ÏòòAbbott€v.€American€Honda€Motor€Co.óó,€682€S.W.2D€206,Ï209€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984)€and€we€will€not€invalidate€it€asÏlong€as€it€fairly€defines€the€legal€issues€involved€in€theÏcase€and€does€not€mislead€the€jury.€€òòSmith€v.€Parkeróó,€213ÏTenn.€147,€156,€373€S.W.2d€205,€209€(1963);€òòRailroadÏCo.€v.€Spenceóó,€93€Tenn.€173,€187,€23€S.W.€211,€215Ï(1893).ÌÌòòò òGrissom€v.€Metro€Gov't€of€Nashvilleó óóó,€817€S.W.2D€679,€685Ï(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).ÌÌÓ€ÓÌà àIn€this€case,€if€the€portions€of€the€charge€asserted€by€the€appellantÏare€taken€in€isolation€from€the€remainder€of€the€court's€charge€on€undueÏinfluence€and€confidential€relation,€serious€questions€would€arise.€€However,Ïwhen€these€portions€of€the€charge€are€taken€in€conjunction€with€theÏremainder€of€the€extensive€charge€given€by€the€court€on€undue€influence€andÏconfidential€relation,€the€problem€is€resolved.ÌÌà àOn€the€whole€the€charge€of€the€trial€court€on€these€issues€wasÍadequate.€€ò òòòIn€re:€Estate€of€Elamó óóó,€738€S.W.2D€169,€176€(Tenn.€1987).ÌÌà àA€more€compelling€reason€appears€for€affirming€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court.€€This€case€was€submitted€to€the€jury€for€a€general€verdictÏwithout€objection€by€any€party.€€Specifically€the€record€discloses:ÌÓÓà8 àTHE€COURT€.€.€.€I'm€instructing€you€to€return€a€generalÏverdict€and€tell€us€this€will€is€valid€and€admissible€toÏprobate€or€this€will€is€invalid€and€not€admissible€toÏprobate;€or,€for€simpler€purposes,€the€will€is€good€or€theÏwill€is€bad€under€the€law.ÌÌà8 àThat's€the€verdict€you're€being€asked€to€do€or€to€return,Ïone€way€or€the€other,€according€to€how€you€find€the€factsÏand€apply€the€law€to€those€facts€in€this€case.ÌÌà8 àAnything€from€either€of€the€parties?ÌÌà8 àMR.€HILLHOUSE:€€No.ÌÌà àMR.€ROSS:€€No,€Your€Honor.ÌÌÓ€ÓÌà àOver€a€century€ago€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€inÏò òòòMaryland€v.€Baldwinó óóó,€112€U.S.€490€(1884)€that€if€a€general€verdict€wasÏreturned€by€the€jury€in€a€case€involving€two€or€more€theories€of€liability€andÏreversible€error€appeared€as€to€any€one€of€the€theories€submitted€then€theÏcase€had€to€be€reversed€and€a€new€trial€granted€because€the€court€on€appealÏhad€no€way€of€knowing€the€basis€for€the€jury€verdict.ÌÌÓÓà8 àOn€the€trial,€evidence€was€introduced€bearing€upon€all€theÏissues,€and€if€any€one€of€the€pleas€was,€in€the€opinion€ofÏthe€jury,€sustained,€their€verdict€was€properly€rendered,Ïbut€its€generality€prevents€us€from€perceiving€upon€whichÏplea€they€found.€€If,€therefore,€upon€any€one€issue€errorÍwas€committed,€either€in€the€admission€of€evidence,€or€inÏthe€charge€of€the€court,€the€verdict€cannot€be€upheld,€forÏit€may€be€that€by€that€evidence€the€jury€were€controlledÏunder€the€instructions€given.ÌÌò òòòMaryland€v.€Baldwinó óóó,€112€U.S.€490,€493€(1884).ÌÌÓ€ÓÌà àTennessee€has,€however,€by€statute€predating€ò òòòBaldwin,ó óóó€adopted€aÏcompletely€opposite€rule.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€20„9„502€andÏ20„9„503.€€These€sections€were€first€enacted€as€ðð€2969€and€ðð€4247€of€theÏTennessee€Code€of€1858€respectively.€€They€have€not€changed€significantly€inÏthe€one€hundred€and€forty€years€since€that€time.€ÌÌà àUnder€these€statutes€it€is€held€that€if€a€verdict€is€sustainable€on€anyÏone€ground€submitted€to€the€jury,€erroneous€instructions€as€to€another€countÏis€harmless€error€and€not€a€basis€for€reversal.€€ò òòòTutton€v.€Pattersonó óóó,€714ÏS.W.2D€268€(Tenn.€1986).ÌÌà àIn€the€leading€case€under€these€statutes€of€ò òòòTennessee€CentralÏRailroad€Co.€v.€Umenstetteró óóó,€Chief€Justice€Grafton€Green€observed:ÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€Court€of€Appeals€found€that€there€was€evidence€toÏtake€the€case€to€the€jury€on€the€statutory€count.€€ThatÏcourt,€however,€did€notà8 à€find€any€evidence€to€take€the€caseÏto€the€jury€on€the€common„law€count.€€The€trial€judgeÏinstructed€the€jury€as€to€the€liability€of€the€defendantÏbelow€under€the€common€law,€as€well€as€under€theÏStatute.€€While€the€Court€of€Appeals€discovered€no€errorÏin€the€charge€upon€the€common„law€count,€they€concludedÏthat€such€a€charge€must€have€been€misleading€to€the€jury,Ïas€they€found€no€evidence€of€common„law€negligence,€andÏfor€this€reason€the€judgment€below€was€reversed€and€aÏnew€trial€awarded.Ìà8 àà àWe€do€not€find€it€necessary€to€review€the€facts€of€theÍcase.€€The€Code€provides€as€follows:Ìà8 àà à"If€any€counts€in€a€declaration€are€good,€a€verdict€forÏentire€damages€shall€be€applied€to€such€good€counts."€ÏThompson's„Shannon's€Code,€ðð€4694.ÌÌà8 àà àA€general€verdict€was€returned€for€plaintiff,€and€underÏthe€statute€just€quoted€this€verdict€must€be€applied€to€thatÏcount€of€the€declaration€which€there€is€evidence€to€sustain.€ÏAlthough€there€be€no€evidence€of€common„lawÏnegligence,€the€verdict€herein€was€good,€since€it€isÏconceded€there€is€evidence€of€the€failure€to€observe€theÏstatutory€precautions.ÌÌò òòòTennessee€Cent.€Ry.€Co.€v.€Umenstetteró óóó,€155€Tenn.€235,€237,€291ÏS.W.€452,€453€(1927).ÌÌÌÓ€ÓAfter€distinguishing€cases€predating€Chapter€32€of€the€Public€Acts€of€1911Ï(the€harmless€error€statute)€the€Supreme€Court€reversed€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€and€reinstated€the€judgment€of€a€trial€court€sustaining€a€generalÏverdict.ÌÓÓà8 àKeeping€in€mind€the€provisions€of€the€statute€just€quoted,Ïit€would€have€to€appear€to€us€affirmatively€that€the€chargeÏof€the€trial€judge€upon€common„law€negligence€influencedÏor€affected€the€verdict€of€the€jury,€before€we€would€beÏjustified€in€reversing€the€judgment€below€on€that€account.Ìà8 àà àCounsel€for€the€plaintiff€in€error€has€made€a€strongÏargument€here€to€sustain€the€conclusion€of€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€that€there€was€no€evidence€of€common„lawÏnegligence€offered€on€the€trial.€€€At€the€same€time€heÏconceded€that€there€was€evidence€of€the€failure€to€observeÏthe€statutory€precautions.€€Could€we€reasonably€be€askedÏin€such€circumstances€to€refer€the€verdict€of€the€jury€toÏthe€common„law€count?€€Could€we€say€that€the€jury€foundÏthe€plaintiff€in€error€breached€its€common„law€duties,Ïwhen€there€was€no€evidence€of€such€breach?€€On€the€otherÏhand,€are€we€not€compelled€to€say€that€the€jury€found€theÏplaintiff€in€error€to€have€breached€its€statutory€duties,€itÏbeing€admitted€that€there€was€evidence€to€this€effect.€ÍCertainly€there€is€nothing€before€us€to€show€affirmativelyÏthat€the€jury€based€the€verdict€upon€the€count€notÏsustained€by€proof,€rather€than€upon€the€count€sufficientlyÏsupported€by€proof,€or€to€show€that€the€jury€was€confusedÏby€the€charge.Ìà8 àà àWe€cannot€escape€the€act€of€1911€in€disposing€of€thisÏcase.€€We€do€not€think€a€mere€abstraction€of€the€trialÏjudge€in€delivering€his€instructions€to€the€jury€invaded€anyÏconstitutional€rights€of€the€parties.Ìà8 àà àThe€Court€of€Appeals€expressed€the€opinion€that,€sinceÏthe€practice€of€directing€verdicts€upon€separate€counts€of€aÏdeclaration€had€come€into€vogue,€the€effect€of€sectionÏ4694,€Thompson's„Shannon's€Code,€(now€T.C.A.€20„9„502)€might€be€obviated.€€Be€that€as€it€may,€although€thereÏwas€a€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€in€favor€of€defendantÏbelow€at€the€close€of€the€proof,€it€was€a€motion€for€aÏdirected€verdict€upon€the€whole€case.€€There€was€noÏmotion€for€a€directed€verdict€on€the€common„law€count€„„Ïno€specific€request€of€the€court€for€action€upon€that€countÏalone.Ìà àÌÓ€Óò òòòTennessee€Cent.€Ry.€Co.€v.€Umenstetteró óóó,€155€Tenn.€at€239,€291€S.W.Ïat€453.ÌÌà àThis€statutory€mandate€as€to€the€effect€to€be€given€to€a€generalÏverdict€applies€in€a€will€contest.€€ò òòòDavidson€v.€Gilreath,€ó óóó273€S.W.2d€717Ï(Tenn.Ct.App.€1954).ÌÌà àIn€ò òòòTutton€v.€Pattersonó óóó€the€jury€returned€a€general€verdict€in€aÏcase€submitted€on€three€theories€of€liability.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€reversedÏbecause€of€error€in€the€charge€as€to€one€of€these€theories.€€The€SupremeÏCourt€of€Tennessee€granted€certiorari€and€reversed€the€Court€of€AppealsÏholding:ÌÓ)` Ü` ä .œx‘X)ÓÓÓà8 àà à[3,€4]à àThe€Court€of€Appeals€determined€that€the€trialÏcourt's€charge€on€the€vicarious€liability€count€wasÍerroneous€and€vacated€the€judgment€against€Dr.€PattersonÏand€remanded€the€cause€for€a€new€trial€withoutÏconsidering€whether€the€error€was€harmless.€€We€are€ofÏthe€opinion€that€the€trial€court's€error,€if€any,€wasÏharmless€error.Ìà8 àà àT.C.A.€ðð€20„9„502€provides€as€follows:Ìà8 àà8 à€€òòVerdict€applied€to€good€account.óó€[sic]€„„€If€anyÏcounts€in€a€declaration€are€good,€a€verdict€forÏentire€damages€shall€be€applied€to€such€goodÏcounts.Ìà8 àTennessee€courts€have€held€on€the€basis€of€the€aboveÏquoted€statute€that€a€trial€court's€erroneous€instruction€onÏone€count€of€a€multicount€suit€is€harmless€error€if€itsÏinstructions€as€to€the€other€counts€were€proper.€ÏòòTennessee€Cent.€Ry.€Co.€v.€Umenstetteróó,€155€Tenn.€235,Ï237,€291€S.W.€452€(1927);€òòBloodworth€v.€Stuartóó,€221ÏTenn.€567,€577,€428€S.W.2d€786€(1968).€€"[A]€generalÏverdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€is€not€vitiated€by€theÏabsence€of€proof€on€one€or€more€counts€of€the€declarationÏif€there€is€evidence€to€sustain€the€averments€of€a€singleÏcount."€òòAlex€v.€Armstrongóó,€215€Tenn.€276,€286,€385ÏS.W.2d€110€(1964);€òòValentine€v.€Concemco,€Inc.óó,€588ÏS.W.2d€871,€877€(Tenn.€App.€1979).ÌÌò òòòTutton€v.€Pattersonó óóó,€714€S.W.2d€268,€271€(Tenn.€1986).ÌÌÓ€ÓÌà àIn€this€case€the€trial€judge€submitted€to€the€jury€three€separateÏissues.€€If€the€contestants€could€prevail€on€any€one€of€the€issues€the€will€inÏquestion€would€be€invalid€regardless€of€the€outcome€of€the€other€issues.€ÏAppellant€complains€on€appeal€only€as€to€certain€instructions€dealing€with€theÏundue€influence€issue€and€its€companion€issue€of€confidential€relation.€€NoÏobjection€is€asserted€on€appeal€as€to€the€issue€of€unsoundness€of€mind€or€theÏissue€of€whether€or€not€the€will€was€executed€under€procedures€mandated€byÏlaw.ÌÌà àWhile€counsel€for€appellant€was€not€counsel€in€the€trial€court,€weÏmust€note€that€the€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€made€in€the€trial€court€was€aÏgeneral€motion€as€to€all€issues€and€not€specifically€directed€at€each€issue.€ÏLikewise€no€issue€is€made€on€appeal€as€to€the€failure€of€the€trial€court€toÏgrant€the€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€on€all€issues.ÌÌà àOne€can€glean€from€the€remarks€of€the€trial€judge€that€he€was€notÏparticularly€impressed€with€the€issue€about€the€execution€of€the€will.€€But€theÏissue€was€nonetheless€submitted€to€the€jury€and€not€the€subject€of€a€directedÏverdict€or€a€judgment€notwithstanding€the€verdict.€€In€any€event€the€trialÏjudge€approved€the€general€verdict€and€on€appeal€this€court€is€compelled€byÏstatute€to€attribute€the€verdict€of€the€jury€to€the€count€alleging€unsoundnessÏof€mind€of€the€testatrix,€this€ground€for€invalidating€the€will€beingÏunchallenged€on€appeal.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€in€all€respects€affirmed€and€theÏcase€is€remanded€for€further€proceedings€as€may€be€deemed€necessary€by€theÏtrial€court.€ÌÌà àCosts€of€this€cause€are€assessed€against€the€appellant.€€à àÌÌà àÌÓÓà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ