WPC% ,d>eŭ:c2WoQ{jPJ#+[L=pOi_[򪡃7%FA5= 6(E>L]6 G蟽`8Иg|wxaj|vS"W+#MY|u1u5^)Ge\ jJoC/W~^wT:|$Vgrfm~̔+W%׿Ύa]kK.퇪LR_6[o~4 J H'ww( @*r(%v^Xa].%~gȯ;}vA:ÁW"MD]\X%Eֲۯ`zӻMKY&u6$IP!ñ8:R [Iaj WJ ؠc\;{Pu.D(0ΆsIcv8)AB ~rWn`b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 1    j 0D0Ntv 0c~EUNUB1 1us 72b 0"""" B   0* D3 D- 0K.. ASy 0 0D6 AzHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0Q+ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularHE*:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   (;3$2#  0  .3  0  (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular\  `*Times New RomanTT3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)- -(|G2p$ !.8Id d 8         0  X"X d(|3$ !.8Id d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Id d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8_Ld d8     _8'XXdd 8@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATKNOXVILLE  @ July10,2001Session $ X]X #XX]#  DeWITTSHELTONv.WADETIDWELLandMARTHATIDWELLX]X  " @  DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforKnoxCounty  " @ No.0031400Hon.WheelerA.Rosenbalm,CircuitJudge      `     h FILEDAUGUST21,2001    @*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @No.E200002913COAR3CV }  AV) ` dE<T` A U   Defendantssoldplaintiffequipmentwhichhadbeenstolen.TheTrialCourtenteredaJudgmentfor < plaintiffforthepurchasemoney.Onappeal,weaffirm. (x #XX](#X]X Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed.  < HerschelPickensFranks#X]#X]X.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM.Goddard,#X]O#X]X.  P.J.,andCharlesD.Susano,Jr.,#X]#X]X.ԀJ.,joined.  StanleyF.LaDuke,Knoxville,Tennessee,forAppellants. t W.TylerChastain,Knoxville,Tennessee,forAppellee. L @66' OPINION #XX][#X]XԈ !L! 0   (#(#    ` TheTrialCourtawardedPlaintiffjudgmentfor$7,500.00,whichhehadpaidto $ $ defendantsforthepurchaseofapieceofconstructionequipment.Theequipmenthadbeentaken % % fromtheplaintiffbypolice,becausetheequipmenthadbeenstolenfromitsrightfulowner. &!& DefendantsappealtheJudgment,whichweaffirm. '"'    ` ThecasewastriedbeforetheCircuitCourtonstipulationoffacts,andtheTrial \)$) CourtsJudgmentbeforeusisrevieweddenovo,asaquestionoflaw.X'XXX]UnionCarbideCorp.v. H*%* Huddleston,854S.W.2d87(Tenn.1993).#X]XXX'T # 6+&+       ` ThestipulationoffactsessentiallyestablishedthatThomasBivenssoldtheequipment  -\(- todefendantsfor$4,800.00cashandatruck.Defendantsthensoldtheequipmenttoplaintifffor  $7,500.00,andgaveplaintiffabillofsale.Subsequently,Bivenspledguiltytotheftforitemswhich  hehadstolenfromtheworksiteofBlazerConstructionCompany,includingtheequipmentsoldto  plaintiff.Whileneitherplaintiffnordefendantsknewtheequipmenthadbeenstolen,thebillofsale t whichdefendantsgavetoplaintiffstatesthatdefendantswarranttheequipmenttobe freeofall ` liensandencumbrances. L     ` TheTrialJudgeheldthatthewarrantyinthebillofsalehadbeenbreachedbythe $ t defendants.Inadditiontotheexpresswarranty,thisjurisdictionrecognizesanimpliedwarrantyof  ` titlewhere oneinpossessionofgoodssellsthemasowner.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.472312;  L  Wardv.Hickerson,236S.W.2d993(Tenn.Ct.App.1950); Rundlev.CapitolChevrolet,Inc.,129  8  S.W.2d217(Tenn.Ct.App.1939). $     ` Thestipulatedevidenceestablishesthatdefendants,aspurchasersofstolenproperty,   didnotacquirelegaltitletotheequipment.McDanielv.Adams,11S.W.939(Tenn.1889).When   theysoldtheequipmenttoplaintiff,however,theywarrantedtoplaintiffthattheydidhavegood   title,andonce plaintiffwasmadeawarethatdefendantsdidnothavetitletotheequipmentanditwas p confiscatedbytheauthorities,plaintiffwasentitledtorescindthesale,andberepaidhispurchase \ price. Rundle.  H    ` Accordingly,weaffirmtheJudgmentoftheTrialCourtandremand,withthecost $t oftheappealassessedtotheappellantsWadeTidwellandMarthaTidwell. `    #XX]}#X]X     `     h      p _________________________     `     h      p HerschelPickensFranks,J.