ÿWPC4 4# èUNó %A 0cGU<ªw@æ4&:I 0JQ 0T› 0^ï 0hM 0rµ 0|' 0†£ 0) 1u¹ 0d. B’ 0@¯ D3ï 0§" 0DÉ U> B)K DCt AM· AQ ÆU 0D 0D_ D/£ BÒ U*ï aizv~ãvÓa˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(;cW$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XaBXXXÔ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman '(E)*U+U,U-î.Ó€:?B\J#‡X3|x?2 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 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò'ÿÿdxd(W(3Ðä$¤¤Ý ƒcW!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XdYXXXÔÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd* 'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(Arial WÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌò òOctoberÏ31,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€/ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó _Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Share€Certificates€are€in€the€name€of€Jovest€Foundation€and€wereÏduly€assigned€to€Union€Planters€by€instrument€signed€by€an€authorizedÏsignatory.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€üÑXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà à€€€€______________________________________________ÌÌò òÙ€*ÙßR€(0'A1-j|€œ` à. `€€@ÿRßJOHN€BURTON€TIGRETT,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiff„Appellant,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àShelby€Law€No.€77595ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02A01„9703„CV„00057ÌÌò òUNION€PLANTERS€NATIONAL€BANK,€ÌÌó óà àDefendant„Appellee.Ì____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€SHELBY€COUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURTÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€L.€CHILDERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àRichard€Glassman,€James€F.€Horner;€Glassman,€Jeter,Ìà@ àEdwards€&€Wade€of€MemphisÌà@ àFor€AppellantÌÌà@ àMark€Vorder„Bruegge,€Jr.;€Wyatt,€Tarrant€&€CombsÌà@ àof€MemphisÌà@ àFor€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòAFFIRMEDÌÌó óà@ àóóOpinion€filed:€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óÌÌ›Ñ7€üÑXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓÓà àPlaintiff,€John€Burton€Tigrett,€appeals€from€the€trial€courtððs€orderÏdismissing€plaintiffððs€complaint€against€defendant,€Union€Planters€NationalÏBank.Ìà àThis€case€is€another€of€the€disputes€spawned€by€the€financial€problemsÏthat€plagued€the€construction€of€the€Pyramid€Arena€in€downtown€Memphis.€ÏThe€dispute€in€this€case€arises€out€of€an€escrow€account€established€as€aÏrequirement€of€the€management€contract€between€the€developer€PyramidÏManagement€Authority,€Inc.€(PMA)€and€the€City€of€Memphis€and€ShelbyÏCounty€which€required€PMA€to€fund€an€escrow€account€with€not€less€thanÏthree€million€dollars€in€assets.€€Tigrett,€a€shareholder€in€PMA,€arranged€to€fundÏa€portion€of€the€escrow€account€with€375,000€shares€of€General€OrientalÍInvestment€(GOI)€stock.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€Tigrett€claims€he€is€the€constructive€and€beneficialÏowner€of€the€GOI€stock€and€asserts€that€because€of€this€fact€he€is€a€third€partyÏbeneficiary€to€the€escrow€agreement.Ìà àThe€escrow€agreement€dated€July€14,€1989,€names€Union€Planters€as€theÏescrow€agent.€€The€parties€to€the€management€contract€for€the€Pyramid€are€theÏdeveloper,€PMA,€and€the€city€and€county.€€The€escrow€agreement€provides€thatÏthe€escrow€agent€as€part€of€its€duties€was€to€make€certain€investigations€orÏinquiries€into€the€value€and€marketability€of€the€GOI€stock€from€time€to€time.€ÏThe€agreement€also€provides€that€at€the€expiration€of€its€term,€the€escrowedÏproperty,€if€not€otherwise€disposed€of€pursuant€to€the€terms€of€the€agreement,Ïwould€be€returned€to€PMA.Ìà àOn€September€7,€1990,€the€escrow€agreement€was€amended€to€provideÏfor€a€€stated€value€of€the€stock€and€a€substitution€of€the€escrowed€stock€withÏproperty€having€a€more€readily€ascertainable€value.€€The€amendment€states:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(2)€Except€as€provided€in€paragraph€(3),€below,€forÏpurposes€of€establishing€the€market€value€of€the€shareÏof€General€Oriental€Investments€Limited€(ð ðGOIðð)Ïcurrently€held€in€escrow€as€required€by€Section€(1)(c)Ïof€the€Escrow€Agreement,€Lessee€[City€of€MemphisÏand€County€of€Shelby],€having€been€provided€withÍaudited€financial€statements€of€GOI,€has€determinedÏthat€the€GOI€shares€have,€and€hereby€instructs€andÏauthorizes€the€Escrow€Agent€[Union€Planters]€to€use,Ïa€value€of€US€$7.85€per€share€for€the€periodÏcommencing€with€this€date€through€a€date€which€isÏthe€earlier€of€(i)€January€2,€1991,€or€(ii)€the€date€onÏwhich€The€Great€American€Pyramid€Joint€Venture,€ofÏwhich€Manager€[PMA]€is€a€joint€venture€partner,Ïsecures€its€project€financing€of€$55,000,000,€or€more,Ïand€receives€its€first€draw€from€the€proceedsÏtherefrom€(the€ð ðFixed€Valuation€Periodðð).ÌÌà àà àà àà à*à àà à*à àà à*ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€Manager€further€covenants€and€agrees€that€on€orÏbefore€the€termination€of€the€Fixed€Valuation€Period,Ïit€will€replace€the€shares€of€GOI,€currently€held€as€partÏof€the€Existing€Collateral,€with€cash,€letter€of€credit€orÏmarketable€securities€listed€on€the€New€York€StockÏExchange;€the€American€Stock€Exchange;€or€listed€onÏNASDAQ€and€for€which€the€parties€mutually€agree€areÏpublicly€quoted€and€traded€on€a€sufficiently€frequentÏbasis€so€as€to€allow€a€market€value€to€be€routinelyÏobtained.ÌÌÓÓà àBy€subsequent€amendment,€on€January€10,€1991,€the€value€of€the€stockÏwas€set€at€$10€per€share,€and€the€date€in€the€fixed€valuation€period€was€changedÏto€April€1,€1991.€€This€amendment€also€provided€for€the€relinquishment€ofÏ75,000€shares,€€reducing€the€escrowed€number€of€GOI€shares€to€300,000.Ìà àOn€May€2,€1991,€Union€Planters€filed€a€complaint€of€interpleader€and€forÏdeclaratory€relief€in€the€Shelby€County€Chancery€Court€tendering€the€GOIÏstock€to€the€chancery€court.€€€The€complaint€names€as€defendants€the€city,€theÍcounty,€PMA,€the€president€of€PMA,€Jovest€Foundation,€and€Tigrett.€€UnionÏPlantersððs€complaint€set€out€the€details€of€the€escrow€agreement€and€theÏamendments€to€the€escrow€agreement€setting€out€the€stated€value€for€the€GOIÏstock.€€The€complaint€averred€that€pursuant€to€the€amendment€to€theÏagreement,€GOI€stock€was€to€be€replaced€with€marketable€securities€by€April€1,Ï1991,€but€that€PMA€had€failed€to€comply€with€this€requirement.€€TheÏcomplaint€further€averred€that€Union€Planters€had€been€instructed€by€the€cityÏand€county€to€sell€the€GOI€stock,€that€PMA€agreed€that€this€should€be€done€forÏthe€highest€price€possible,€but€that€Tigrett€demanded€that€Union€Planters€notÏsell€the€stock.€Ìà àThe€record€is€not€clear€as€to€what€responsive€pleadings€were€filed€to€theÏcomplaint,€but€it€appears€that€nothing€was€done€concerning€the€petition€untilÏthe€fall€of€1994€when€Union€Planters€was€notified€of€a€tender€offer€for€all€of€theÏoutstanding€shares€of€GOI€stock.€€When€Union€Planters€learned€of€the€tenderÏoffer,€it€filed€a€motion€with€the€chancery€court€for€instructions€on€whether€theÏstock€should€be€sold€pursuant€to€the€tender€offer.€€Union€Planters€requested€anÏexpedited€hearing€because€of€the€pending€expiration€of€the€tender€offer.€€TheÏmotion€avers€that€ð ðGOI€is€a€closely€held€foreign€corporation€whose€stock€isÏquoted€in€British€pounds.€€It€has€been€traded€on€the€Vancouver€stock€exchangeÍand€in€London€but€rarely€trades.ðð€€The€motion€merely€requested€instructions€asÏto€what€the€escrow€agent€should€do€in€the€face€of€the€tender€offer.€€TheÏchancery€court€held€a€hearing€at€which€Tigrett€introduced€proof€that€if€the€saleÏof€the€stock€were€made€he€would€have€an€approximately€$800,000€tax€loss,€andÏhis€objection€to€the€sale€of€the€stock€was€based€upon€his€assertion€that€thereÏwas€no€triggering€event€in€the€escrow€agreement€that€would€authorize€such€aÏsale.€€The€chancellor€found€that€the€terms€of€the€agreement€as€amendedÏrequired€that€ð ðmarketable€securitiesðð€be€placed€in€escrow€in€place€of€the€GOIÏstock€by€April€1,€1991,€and€that€this€had€not€been€done.€€The€chancellor€alsoÏnoted€that€Tigrett€had€the€opportunity,€if€he€so€desired,€to€make€theÏreplacement€prior€to€any€sale€of€the€stock€pursuant€to€the€tender€offer.€€UnionÏPlanters,€through€its€attorneys,€advised€the€court€that€it€had€been€unable€to€findÏa€ready€market€for€the€stock€and€that€the€escrow€agreement€had€been€amendedÏto€set€a€price€of€$10.00€per€share€for€the€stock€because€of€the€lack€of€a€readyÏmarket.€€The€chancellor€found€that€the€salability€of€the€GOI€stock€wasÏsomewhat€questionable€and€that€the€tender€offer€should€be€accepted.€€UnionÏPlanters,€as€the€escrow€agent,€was€authorized€and€directed€by€the€court€to€sellÏthe€stock€pursuant€to€the€tender€offer.€€Tigrett€sought€a€Rule€10€extraordinaryÏappeal€and€a€stay€of€the€trial€courtððs€order,€but€the€Court€of€Appeals€denied€theÍextraordinary€appeal€and€the€stay.€€Subsequently,€the€Supreme€Court€didÏlikewise.€Ìà àIn€this€underlying€litigation,€although€it€is€not€entirely€clear,€it€appearsÏthat€the€City€of€Memphis€and€Shelby€County€filed€cross€complaints€againstÏPMA,€Shlenker,€Tigrett,€Jovest€Foundation€and€Union€Planters,€and€in€turnÏTigrett€filed€a€counter€complaint€against€the€city€and€the€county.€€Subsequently,Ïin€June,€1995,€Tigrett€was€granted€leave€by€the€court€to€file€an€amended€andÏsupplemental€counter€complaint€against€Union€Planters.€€The€counter€complaintÏalleges€in€substance€that€Union€Planters€had€a€fiduciary€duty€to€give€the€partiesÏto€the€agreement€true€and€accurate€information€regarding€the€available€marketÏand€the€potential€sales€price€of€the€GOI€stock,€and€that€Union€Planters€made€aÏfalse€representation€concerning€difficulty€in€obtaining€quotes€on€the€stock.€€TheÏcomplaint€further€avers€that€counsel€for€Union€Planters€made€falseÏrepresentations€to€the€trial€court€and€later€to€the€Court€of€Appeals€at€the€timeÏof€the€application€for€extraordinary€appeal€and€stay.€€The€allegedÏmisrepresentations€were€that€the€stock€was€not€saleable,€€there€was€no€marketÏfor€the€stock,€œand€that›€therefore€the€tender€offer€needed€to€be€accepted€as€inÏthe€best€interest€of€the€parties.€€The€complaint€avers€that€because€of€theÏmisrepresentations€on€the€part€of€Union€Planters,€the€trial€court€authorized€andÍdirected€the€sale€of€the€stock€pursuant€to€the€tender€offer.€€On€March€22,€1996,Ïthe€underlying€action€was€dismissed€with€prejudice€by€consent€order€ofÏdismissal€as€to€all€matters€except€the€counter€complaint€of€Tigrett€againstÏUnion€Planters€which€was€dismissed€without€prejudice€to€the€refiling€of€same.€€à àÌà àOn€April€16,€1996,€the€complaint€in€the€instant€case€was€filed.€€TheÏcomplaint€sets€out€the€background€information€concerning€the€escrowÏagreement,€Union€Planters€appointment,€and€avers€that€Union€Planters€as€partÏof€its€duties€made€investigations€or€inquiries€into€the€value€and€marketability€ofÏthe€shares€of€stock€and€continued€periodically€to€secure€this€information€untilÏabout€December,€1990.€€The€complaint€further€avers€that€Union€PlantersÏlearned€that€there€was€an€available€market€for€the€stock€and€that€it€could€beÏsold€by€Shearson€Lehman€Brothers€for€U.S.€currency.€€The€complaint€also€aversÏthat€information€was€received€from€William€Woods,€a€stockbroker€in€London,Ïconcerning€the€value€and€trade€ability€of€the€stock.€€The€complaint€alleges€thatÏUnion€Planters€had€a€fiduciary€duty€to€give€true€and€accurate€informationÏregarding€the€available€market€and€potential€sales€price€of€the€stock€to€theÏrespective€parties€to€the€agreement€and€that€it€breached€its€duty.€€TheÏcomplaint€further€alleges€that€in€April,€1991,€Union€Planters€represented€that€itÏhad€difficulty€in€obtaining€bid€quotes€for€the€stock,€and€it€was€doubtful€thatÍthey€could€sell€the€stock€to€cure€a€deficiency€in€the€amount€required€by€theÏescrow€agreement.€€The€complaint€further€alleges€that€in€May€of€1991,€UnionÏPlanters€filed€a€complaint€requesting€adjudication€as€to€the€rights€andÏobligations€of€the€parties€to€the€escrow€agreement€as€to€the€300,000€shares€ofÏGOI€stock.€€Then,€in€the€fall€of€1994,€after€Union€Planters€was€notified€of€aÏtender€offer,€it€filed€a€motion€for€instructions€as€to€the€sale€of€the€stockÏpursuant€to€the€tender€offer.€€The€complaint€avers€that€the€city,€the€county,€andÏPMA€relied€upon€the€defendantððs€information€and€joined€in€the€motion€to€sellÏthe€stock.€€The€complaint€further€alleges€that€after€the€trial€court€ordered€thatÏthe€stock€be€sold€pursuant€to€the€tender€offer,€an€application€was€made€withÏthe€Court€of€Appeals€for€an€extraordinary€appeal€and€for€a€stay€of€the€trialÏcourtððs€order.€€The€appeal€and€stay€were€denied€by€the€Court€of€œAppeals›€andÏultimately€by€the€Supreme€Court.€€The€complaint€avers€that€in€the€trial€courtÏand€in€the€appellate€court,€Union€Planters€made€willful€misrepresentations€toÏthe€courts€that€there€was€no€market€for€the€stock,€that€it€was€not€saleable,€thatÏUnion€Planters€attempted€for€a€period€of€years€unsuccessfully€to€locate€aÏmarket€for€the€stock,€and€that€because€of€these€misrepresentations€the€courtÏordered€that€the€stock€be€sold€pursuant€to€the€tender€offer,€resulting€inÏdamages€to€Tigrett.€€Union€Planters€responded€to€the€complaint€with€a€motionÍto€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted.€€InÏsupport€of€the€motion,€Union€Planters€relied€upon€parts€of€the€record€in€theÏunderlying€action.€€The€courtððs€order€granting€the€motion€and€dismissing€theÏaction€specifically€relies€upon€this€extraneous€material.€€Accordingly,€UnionÏPlantersððs€motion€will€be€treated€and€disposed€of€as€one€for€summary€œjudgment.›€ÏTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02.Ìà àThe€only€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€grantingÏsummary€judgment.Ìà à€A€trial€court€should€grant€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€only€if€theÏmovant€demonstrates€that€there€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€thatÏthe€moving€party€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ï56.03;€ò òòòByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993);€òòò òDunn€v.€Hackettó óóó,€833ÏS.W.2d€78,€80€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€The€party€moving€for€summary€judgmentÏbears€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists.Ïòòò òByrdó óóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210.€€When€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€is€made,€theÏcourt€must€consider€the€motion€in€the€same€manner€as€a€motion€for€directedÏverdict€made€at€the€close€of€the€plaintiff's€proof;€that€is,€"the€court€must€takeÏthe€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,Ïallow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€and€discard€allÍcountervailing€evidence."€òòò òIdó óóó.€at€210„11.€€In€òòò òByrdó óóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏstated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àOnce€it€is€shown€by€the€moving€party€that€there€is€noÏgenuine€issue€of€material€fact,€the€nonmoving€partyÏmust€then€demonstrate,€by€affidavits€or€discoveryÏmaterials,€that€there€is€a€genuine,€material€factÏdispute€to€warrant€a€trial.€[citations€omitted].€€In€thisÏregard,€Rule€56.05€provides€that€the€nonmoving€partyÏcannot€simply€rely€upon€his€pleadings€but€must€setÏforth€òòò òspecific€factsó óóó€showing€that€there€is€a€genuineÏissue€of€material€fact€for€trial.Ì€à@ àÌòòò òÓÓIdó óóó.€at€211.€(emphasis€in€original).€Where€a€genuine€dispute€exists€as€to€anyÏmaterial€fact€or€as€to€the€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€those€facts,€a€courtÏmust€deny€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€òòò òByrdó óóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€211€(citingÏòòò òDunnó óóó,€833€S.W.2d€at€80).Ìà àThe€crux€of€Tigrettððs€complaint€is€that€Union€Planters,€by€virtue€of€itsÏfalse€and€fraudulent€misrepresentations€to€the€court,€procured€the€orderÏauthorizing€the€sale€of€the€GOI€stock.Ìà àUnion€Planters€asserts€several€reasons€to€justify€the€trial€courtððs€dismissalÏof€Tigrettððs€action,€including€that€he€cannot€now€collaterally€attack€the€trialÏcourtððs€order€authorizing€and€directing€the€sale€of€the€stock.€€Tigrett€asserts,Ïhowever,€that€because€he€filed€a€counterclaim€in€the€underlying€action€whichÏwas€dismissed€without€prejudice€to€refile,€there€was€no€litigation€of€the€issuesÍand€thus€they€can€now€be€litigated.€€We€must€respectfully€disagree.€€TigrettÏapparently€loses€sight€of€the€fact€that€the€alleged€cause€of€his€misery€is€the€trialÏcourtððs€order€authorizing€and€directing€Union€Planters€to€sell€the€stock.€€TheÏbankððs€interpleader€action€sought€instruction€and€authority€which€was€grantedÏin€the€order.€€Although€Tigrett€later€filed€a€counterclaim€in€the€underlyingÏaction€seeking€monetary€relief,€that€relief€could€only€be€obtained€if€the€orderÏcomplained€about€was€determined€to€be€erroneous€because€of€fraud€or€whateverÏreason.€€Upon€dismissal€of€the€counterclaim,€cross€claims,€and€the€principalÏcomplaint€in€the€underlying€action€with€prejudice,€the€order€of€the€trial€courtÏauthorizing€and€directing€the€sale€of€the€stock€became€a€final€order.€€à àÌà àWe€must€bear€in€mind€that€Union€Planters,€in€selling€the€stock,€acted€inÏcompliance€with€the€order€of€the€chancery€court€directing€the€bank€to€makeÏthe€sale.€€Clearly,€Union€Planters€was€justified€in€so€acting.€€This€justification€isÏbest€expressed€by€a€maxim€applicable€to€the€chancery€court€and€its€orders:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à5.€€€.€.€.€(He€who€does€anything€by€command€of€theÏJudge€will€not€be€deemed€to€have€acted€from€anÏimproper€motive,€because€it€was€necessary€for€him€toÏobey).€€This€rule€protects€a€clerk€who€pays€out€money,Ïor€does€any€other€act,€by€order€of€the€Court.€€ItÏprotects€the€sheriff€in€the€proper€execution€of€theÏorders,€decrees€and€process€of€the€Court;€and€protectsÏreceivers,€special€commissioners€and€others,€who€doÏany€act€in€pursuance€of€an€order€or€decree€of€a€Court.€ÏThe€party€dissatisfied€with€any€such€order€or€decreeÍmust€take€the€proper€steps€to€have€it€suspended,Ïcorrected€or€reversed.ÌÌðð€37€(5)€ò òòòGibsonsðð€Suits€in€Chanceryó óóó€(Inman,€6th€ed.)Ìà àÌÓÓà àTigrett€asserts€that€the€chancery€court€order€was€obtained€by€virtue€ofÏthe€fraud€and€misrepresentation€of€Union€Planters.€€These€matters€could€haveÏbeen€litigated€in€the€underlying€chancery€action€and€any€subsequent€appeal.€€InÏorder€for€Tigrett€to€prevail,€it€is€essential€to€prove€that€the€chancery€courtÏorder€was€erroneously€entered€and€thus€the€instant€action€is€a€collateral€attackÏon€the€chancery€court€order.Ìà àGenerally,€a€party€may€file€an€independent€action€to€set€aside€a€judgmentÏonly€under€unusual€and€exceptional€circumstances€and€then€only€where€no€otherÏremedy€is€available€or€adequate.€€ò òòòJerkins€v.€McKinneyó óóó,€533€S.W.2d€275,€281Ï(Tenn.€1976).€€In€ò òòòSchorr€v.€Schorró óóó,€C.A.€No.€02A01„9409„CH„00217,€1996€WLÏ148613€(Tenn.€App.€W.S.€Mar.€29,€1996),€this€Court€said:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€€€€In€an€independent€action€to€set€aside€a€judgmentÏon€the€basis€of€fraud,€the€complaining€party€mustÏprove€extrinsic,€as€opposed€to€intrinsic,€fraud.€€ò òòòNewÏYork€Life€Ins.€Co.€v.€Nashville€Trust€Co.ó óóó,€200€Tenn.Ï513,€517„21,€292€S.W.2d€749,€751„53€(1956);€ò òòòMedlockÏv.€Ferrarió óóó,€602€S.W.2d€241,€245„46€(Tenn.€App.€1979);Ïò òòòNoll€v.€Chattanooga€Co.ó óóó,€38€S.W.€287,€290„91€(Tenn.ÏCh.€App.€1896),€affððd€orally€Oct.€28,€1986.€€TheÏdistinction€between€intrinsic€and€extrinsic€fraudÏexisted€at€common€law,€ò òòòidóóó ó.,€and€is€maintained€todayÏboth€under€the€rules€of€civil€procedure€and€in€caseÍlaw.€€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€60.02€(Michie€1995);€ò òòòStacks€v.ÏSaunders,€ó óóó812€S.W.2d€587,€592€(Tenn.€App.€1990);Ïò òòòBrown€v.€Raines,€ó óóó611€S.W.2d€594,€597€(Tenn.€App.Ï1980).ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€Prior€to€the€adoption€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCivil€Procedure,€a€party€seeking€to€set€aside€aÏjudgment€on€the€basis€of€intrinsic€fraud€was€requiredÏto€prove€the€fraud€either€at€trial,€in€a€motion€for€aÏnew€trial,€or€on€appeal.€€ò òòòNolló óóó,€28€S.W.€at€290„91.€ÏUpon€completion€of€the€appellate€process,€a€partyÏcould€no€longer€seek€to€set€aside€a€judgment€on€theÏbasis€of€intrinsic€fraud:ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€à8 àThe€trial€is€his€opportunity€for€makingÏthe€truth€appear.€€If,€unfortunately,€heÏfails,€being€overborne€by€perjuredÏtestimony,€and€if€he€likewise€fails€to€showÏthe€injustice€that€has€been€done€him€onÏmotion€for€a€new€trial,€and€the€judgmentÏis€affirmed€on€appeal,€he€is€withoutÏremedy.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€291.€€This€rationale€is€consistent€withÏfundamental€principles€of€jurisprudence,€which€state:Ïð ðMaterial€facts€or€questions€which€were€in€issue€in€aÏformer€action€and€were€there€admitted€or€judiciallyÏdetermined,€are€conclusively€settled€by€a€judgmentÏrendered€therein,€and€such€facts€or€questions€becomeÏres€judicata€and€may€not€again€be€litigated€in€aÏsubsequent€action€brought€between€the€same€partiesÏor€their€privies.ðð€€ò òòòMedlockó óóó,€602€S.W.2d€at€246.ÌÌÓÓà àTigrettððs€allegations€in€this€case€are€allegations€of€intrinsic€fraud€andÏcannot€be€the€basis€for€a€collateral€attack€of€the€chancery€courtððs€order.Ìà àAlthough€not€absolutely€necessary€to€a€decision€in€this€case,€someÍcomment€on€Tigrettððs€statements€in€his€brief€might€be€enlightening.€€TigrettÏapparently€took€€the€position€in€the€trial€court,€and€takes€the€position€in€thisÏappeal,€that€the€writer€of€this€opinion,€in€considering€Tigrettððs€application€forÏextraordinary€appeal€and€a€stay€of€the€chancery€courtððs€order,€recognized€thatÏTigrett€could€have€an€action€for€damages€if€the€chancery€court€order€wasÏerroneously€entered.€€Tigrett€misconstrued€what€was€said.€€It€should€be€notedÏthat€at€the€time€Tigrett,€through€his€counsel,€was€attempting€to€obtain€a€stay€ofÏthe€trial€courtððs€order€directing€the€sale€of€the€stock,€the€position€of€Tigrett€wasÏthat€the€stock€should€not€be€sold,€and€that€there€was€no€breach€of€the€escrowÏagreement€justifying€the€sale€as€called€for€by€the€city,€the€county,€and€PMA.€ÏTigrettððs€counsel€was€quite€adamant€that€the€stock€simply€should€not€be€sold.€ÏThe€courtððs€comment€was€in€that€context€and€was€to€the€effect€that€if€the€cityÏand€county€improperly€declared€a€default€and€Tigrett€suffered€damages€by€virtueÏthereof,€the€chancery€court€in€that€action€could€award€damages€for€theÏimproper€ð ðforeclosure.ðð€€This€is€analogous€to€the€erroneous€granting€of€anÏinjunction€which€occasions€damages€to€the€enjoined€party.€€There€was€noÏindication€at€the€time€of€the€mentioned€proceeding€that€Tigrett€wasÏcomplaining€about€the€actions€of€Union€Planters.€€œÌà àFor€the€reasons€stated,€the€order€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed,€and€thisÍcase€is€ÌÌremanded€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€necessary.€€Costs€of€appeal€areÏassessed€against€appellant.€€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌÌó ó____________________________________Ìò òDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óÌÌò ò____________________________________ÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óœÔ€Ô