ÿWPCƒ …# VU:a %› 04¡4Õé 0xø 0Dp ´ w@¼ 0Jü 0TF 0^š 0hø 0r` 0|Ò 0†N 0Ô 1ud U,Ù 0dU,iU*•B)¿DCè AM+ Bx@•õÕv~ÊvÓH D3 0@N AOŽÆÝ 0P£ 0Dó D/7 Bf˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó˜€* tÔôÔô3|xj (((3ÝÙ$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó _ E` a eb ec ed {e f Eg h «2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d 6Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òFebruary€26,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ëÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€so€doing,€we€overruled€òòSweet€v.€Chattanooga€Electric€Light€Coóó.,€97€Tenn.Ï252,€à à36€S.W.€1090€(1896),€in€which€we€held€that€an€action€filed€in€a€court€with€noÏsubject„à àmatter€jurisdiction€was€not€"an€action€commenced€within€the€time€limitedÏby€a€rule€à àor€statute€of€limitation."€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3¾¸$¢¢Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ , ÑÑ ` Ñ›Ñ7€'XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑØ ØÓ&€X°d&Óà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSON€ÌÌÌÌÌSUSIE€P.€HENLEY€and€à àà àà à)òòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌKENNETHÏHENLEYà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœ)à àà àFiled:€February€26.€1996›Ìà àPlaintiffs„Appellants,à àà à)à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àMADISON€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌLEWIS€LATANE€COBB,€JR.,à àà à)à àHon.€Joe€C.€Morris,€ChancellorÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(sitting€by€interchange)Ìà àDefendant„Appellee.à àà à)à àà àÌÙ€€ÙßL€#%";+'h|5d` Å `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.Ï02S01„9501„CV„00008ÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiffs„Appellantsóó:à àà àà àòòFor€Defendant„Appelleeóó:ÌÌW.€Mark€Wardà àà àà àà àJerry€D.€Kizer,€Jr.ÌMemphis,€Tennesseeà àà àà àDale€Conder,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRainey,€Kizer,€Butler,€ReviereÌReed€L.€Malkinà àà àà àà à€€&€Bell,€P.L.C.ÌMemphis,€Tennesseeà àà àà àJackson,€TennesseeÌÌà@ àÔ€ „ÔÌÌÌà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€ XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCOURT€OF€APPEALS€REVERSEDÌAND€CAUSE€REMANDED.à àà àà àà àà àà àDROWOTA,€J.ÌÌÓÓà àIn€this€personal€injury€case,€the€plaintiffs,€Susie€and€Kenneth€Henley,Ïappeal€from€the€Court€of€Appeals'€affirmance€of€the€summary€judgment€grantedÏin€favor€of€the€defendant,€Lewis€Cobb,€on€statute€of€limitations€grounds.€€ThisÏcase€presents€one€issue€for€our€determination:€whether€the€plaintiffs€are€entitledÏto€the€benefit€of€the€"saving€statute,"€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„1„105,€so€as€to€avoidÏthe€statute€of€limitations€bar€under€the€facts€of€this€case.Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌÓ  Óòòò òFACTS€AND€PROCEDURAL€HISTORYó óóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àOn€December€9,€1990,€the€plaintiffs€Susie€and€Kenneth€Henley,€residentsÏof€Shelby€County,€were€involved€in€an€automobile€accident€with€the€defendantÏLewis€Cobb,€a€resident€of€Madison€County.€€Although€the€accident€occurred€inÏGibson€County,€€the€plaintiffs€filed€a€negligence€action€against€Cobb€in€theÏShelby€County€Circuit€Court€on€December€5,€1991,€four€days€before€the€one€yearÏstatutory€period€of€limitations€applicable€to€such€actions,€see€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ï28„3„104,€was€to€expire.€€The€summons€and€complaint€was€duly€served€on€LewisÏCobb€at€his€residence€in€Madison€County€on€December€12,€1991.ÌÌà àOn€January€23,€1992,€the€defendant€moved€to€dismiss€the€case,€arguingÏthat€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„4„101(a),€venue€was€only€proper€inÏGibson€County€„„€the€county€where€the€cause€of€action€arose€„„€or€MadisonÏCounty€„„€the€county€in€which€the€defendant€resided.€€In€response€to€thisÏpleading,€the€plaintiffs€took€a€voluntary€nonsuit€on€January€30,€1992,€and€refiledÏtheir€case€on€March€2,€1992,€in€the€Madison€County€Circuit€Court.€€€€€ÌÌà àOn€January€13,€1993,€the€defendant€moved€for€summary€judgment,Íarguing€that€the€action€was€time„barred€because€it€was€not€filed€in€a€court€withÏproper€venue€within€one€year€of€the€date€of€the€accident.€€The€plaintiffsÏresponded€to€this€motion€by€citing€the€saving€statute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„1„105,€which€provides€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àòòIf€the€action€is€commenced€within€the€time€limited€by€a€rule€or€statuteÏof€limitation,€but€the€judgment€or€decree€is€rendered€against€theÏplaintiff€upon€any€ground€not€concluding€his€right€of€actionóó,€or€whereÏthe€judgment€or€decree€is€rendered€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff,€and€isÏarrested,€or€reversed€on€appeal,€òòthe€plaintiff,€or€his€representativesÏand€privies,€as€the€case€may€be,€may,€from€time€to€time,€commenceÏa€new€action€within€one€(1)€year€after€the€reversal€or€arrestóó.ÌÌ€€(emphasis€added.)ÌÌÓÓÌThe€plaintiffs€argued€that€because€they€took€a€voluntary€nonsuit€in€response€toÏthe€defendant's€motion€to€dismiss€on€the€ground€of€improper€venue,€the€judgmentÏwas€rendered€against€them€upon€a€ground€that€did€not€conclude€their€right€ofÏaction.€Because€they€filed€the€action€in€Shelby€County€within€the€one„yearÏlimitations€period,€the€plaintiffs€concluded,€they€should€receive€the€benefit€of€theÏsaving€statute.€€The€defendant,€on€the€other€hand,€argued€that€the€saving€statuteÍshould€not€apply€because€the€plaintiffs€were€grossly€negligent€in€filing€the€actionÏin€Shelby€County,€which€was€neither€the€county€in€which€the€cause€of€actionÏarose€nor€the€county€in€which€the€defendant€resided.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€granted€the€defendant's€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€TheÏCourt€of€Appeals€affirmed€this€judgment,€and€we€granted€the€plaintiffs'€applicationÏfor€permission€to€appeal€in€order€to€clarify€the€scope€of€the€saving€statute.ÌÌÓ  Óòòò òANALYSISó óóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àIt€is€well€settled€that€Tennessee€law€strongly€favors€the€resolution€of€allÏdisputes€on€their€merits,€and€that€the€saving€statute€is€to€be€given€a€broad€andÏliberal€construction€in€order€to€achieve€this€goal.€€òòWoods€v.€Palmeróó,€496€S.W.2dÏ474€(Tenn.€1974);€òòBalsinger€v.€Gassóó,€214€Tenn.€343,€379€S.W.2d€800€(1964);ÏòòBrooksbank€v.€Roane€Countyóó,€207€Tenn.€524,€341€S.W.2d€570€(1960).€€This€ruleÏand€its€supporting€rationale€were€ably€enunciated€in€òòGeneral€Accident€Fire€&€LifeÏAssur.€Corp.€v.€Kirklandóó,€210€Tenn.€39,€356€S.W.2d€283€(1962),€where€we€statedÍthat:ÌÌÓÓà8 àWithin€recent€years€our€Court,€as€well€as€the€Courts€of€last€resort€inÏother€States,€has€paid€more€attention€to€the€basic€and€intrinsic€rightsÏof€the€parties€than€it€has€to€form,€doing€justice€between€the€parties€inÏadministering€the€spirit€of€the€law€instead€of€the€cold€letter€of€theÏlaw.€€The€letter€of€Section€28„106€T.C.A.€[the€forerunner€to€ðð€28„1„105],€as€well€as€the€spirit€which€prompted€its€enactment,€shows€thatÏthe€basic€purpose€was€to€aid€the€courts€in€administering€the€lawÏfairly€between€litigants€without€binding€them€to€minor€and€technicalÏmistakes€made€by€their€counsel€in€interpreting€the€complexities€ofÏour€laws€of€procedure.ÌÌòòKirklandóó,€210€Tenn.€at€43,€356€S.W.2d€at€285.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€plaintiffs€argue€that€this€rule€of€construction,€coupled€with€theÏunqualified€language€of€the€saving€statute,€entitles€them€to€refile€the€case.€€TheÏdefendant,€on€the€other€hand,€argues€that€the€saving€statute€does€not€apply€if€theÏparty€seeking€to€invoke€it€has€been€guilty€of€gross€negligence€in€suffering€theÏadverse€judgment.€€He€cites€several€cases,€including€òòSmith€v.€McNealóó,€109€U.S.Ï426,€3€S.Ct.€319€(1883);€òòDavis€v.€Parksóó,€151€Tenn.€321,€270€S.W.€444,€446Ï(1924)(citing€òòSmithóó);€and€òòMoran€v.€Weinbergeróó,€149€Tenn.€537,€260€S.W.€966,Í967€(1924)€to€support€this€assertion.€€The€defendant€concludes€that€because€theÏplaintiffs€were€grossly€negligent€in€filing€the€action€in€Shelby€County,€they€shouldÏnot€be€allowed€to€invoke€the€statute.€€ÌÌà àInitially,€while€it€is€true€that€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€and€thisÏCourt€have€stated€that€the€saving€statute€is€unavailable€to€a€party€exhibiting€grossÏnegligence,€it€is€also€true€that€none€of€these€statements€were€central€to,€orÏnecessary€for,€the€holding€of€the€case.€€For€example,€the€òòSmithóó€court,€in€theÏcontext€of€an€action€to€recover€Tennessee€property€under€a€federal€statute,Ïmerely€stated€that:ÌÌÓÓà8 àCases€might€be€supposed,€perhaps,€where€the€want€of€jurisdictionÏin€the€court€was€so€clear€that€the€bringing€of€a€suit€therein€wouldÏshow€such€gross€negligence€and€indifference€as€to€cut€the€party€offÏfrom€the€benefit€of€the€saving€statute,€as€if€an€action€of€ejectmentÏshould€be€brought€in€a€court€of€admiralty,€or€a€bill€in€equity€shouldÏbe€filed€before€a€justice€of€the€peace.€€But€the€suit€between€theseÏparties€...€is€far€from€being€such€a€case.ÌÌòòÌÓÓSmithóó,€109€U.S.€at€430,€3€S.Ct.€at€321.€€Similarly,€although€the€òòMoranóó€court€statedÍthat€ð ðthe€statute€...€is€to€be€liberally€construed,€but€protection€against€the€laches,Ïnegligences,€or€other€fault€of€the€plaintiff€was€not€part€of€its€purpose,ðð€òòMoranóó,€260ÏS.W.€at€967,€this€statement€was€dicta,€having€no€necessary€bearing€on€theÏholding€of€the€Court.€€In€fact,€to€our€knowledge€no€Tennessee€appellate€court€hasÏever€held€that€a€party€is€not€entitled€to€invoke€the€statute€because€of€its€fault€inÏsuffering€the€adverse€judgment.€€à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àÌà àIf,€then,€the€negligence€of€the€party€in€suffering€the€adverse€judgment€is€notÏthe€test€of€the€saving€statuteððs€applicability,€but€has€been€merely€mentioned€inÏdicta,€what€is€the€test?€€A€closer€reading€of€our€cases€reveals€that€notice€to€theÏparty€affected€is€the€true€test€of€the€statuteððs€applicability.€€€The€paramountÏimportance€of€the€notice€consideration€is€exemplified€by€òòBurns€v.€People'sÏTelegraph€&€Telephone€Coóó.,€161€Tenn.€382,€33€S.W.2d€76€(1930).€€In€òòBurnsóó,€theÏdefendant€argued€that€an€action€filed€in€a€court€having€no€subject„matterÏjurisdiction€did€not€qualify€as€an€action€"commenced€within€the€time€limited€by€aÏrule€or€statute€of€limitation,"€and€thus€the€saving€statute€did€not€apply.€€WeÏrejected€this€argument,€pointing€out€that€the€crucial€consideration€was€not€theÍtechnical€form€of€the€first€action,€but€the€fact€that€the€defendant€actually€had€noticeÏof€it.× ƒ& ××  ×€€We€stated:€"the€reason€justifying€statutes€such€as€[the€saving€statute]€is€thatÏthe€bringing€of€a€suit,€whether€prosecuted€to€final€judgment€or€not,€gives€theÏdefendant€notice€that€the€plaintiff€has€a€demand€which€he€proposes€to€assert,"ÏòòBurnsóó,€161€Tenn.€at€387,€33€S.W.2d€at€78,€and€that:€ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€statute€is€designed€to€insure€to€the€diligent€suitor€the€right€to€aÏhearing€in€court€till€he€reaches€a€judgment€on€the€merits.€€Its€broadÏand€liberal€purpose€is€not€to€be€frittered€away€by€any€narrowÏconstruction.€The€important€consideration€is€that,€by€invokingÏjudicial€aid,€a€litigant€gives€timely€notice€to€his€adversary€of€aÏpresent€purpose€to€maintain€his€rights€before€the€courts.€€òòÌÌIdóó.(quoting€òòGaines€v.€New€Yorkóó,€109€N.E.€504€(N.Y.€Ct.€App.€1915)).ÌÌÌà àÌÓÓà àHere,€it€is€undisputed€that€the€defendant€was€duly€served€with€process€inÏMadison€County€shortly€after€the€first€action€was€filed.€€Moreover,€the€recordÍcontains€an€affidavit€of€the€plaintiffsðð€counsel,€in€which€he€states€that€in€late€1991Ïhe€discussed€the€possibility€of€filing€suit€in€Shelby€County€with€State€FarmÏInsurance€Company,€the€€the€defendantððs€insurer,€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding€theÏlimitations€period.€€€Although€State€Farm€denies€giving€its€consent€for€suit€to€beÏfiled€in€Shelby€County,€the€record€does€contain€an€affidavit€of€the€adjusterÏassigned€to€the€claim;€in€this€affidavit,€the€adjuster€states€that€he€talked€with€theÏdefense€attorney€about€the€case,€and€that€he€knew€that€a€lawsuit€in€the€matterÏwas€imminent.€€Thus,€State€Farm€was€clearly€aware€of€the€accident;€it€was€alsoÏaware€of€the€fact€that€the€plaintiffs€were€preparing€to€file€an€action€against€itsÏinsured.€€€ÌÌà àBecause€both€interested€adverse€parties€were€given€actual€notice€of€theÏplaintiffs'€legal€claims€against€them,€we€cannot€agree€that€the€plaintiffs'€failure€toÏfile€the€action€in€the€proper€venue€precludes€the€application€of€the€saving€statute.€ÏFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€reversed,€andÏthe€cause€remanded€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àJUSTICEÌÌÌConcur:à àÌÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌReid,€Birch€and€White,€JJ.à àÌ