Morgan v. Driskill ( 1999 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
FILED
AT KNOXVILLE April 16, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt
Clerk
JEFFREY MORGAN, ) C/A NO. 03A01-9802-CV-00079
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
)
v. ) JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
)
)
)
THOMAS L. DRISKILL, )
) HONORABLE BEN W. HOOPER, II,
Defendant-Appellant. ) JUDGE
For Appellant For Appellee
THOMAS L. DRISKILL JEFFREY L. JONES
Pro Se STEVEN DOUGLAS DRINNON
Knoxville, Tennessee Rainwater & Jones
Dandridge, Tennessee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED Susano, J.
1
This is an unlawful detainer action. Jeffrey Morgan
filed a civil warrant against Thomas L. Driskill in the Jefferson
County General Sessions Court seeking to recover a mobile home
and lot in Strawberry Plains. Judgment restoring the plaintiff
to possession was entered in that court. On appeal by Driskill
to the Jefferson County Circuit Court, that Court, based “upon
the record and testimony in open Court,” entered a judgment that
upholds the order of the General Sessions
Court and does hereby dismiss this Appeal and
grants possession to the Plaintiff.
(Emphasis added).
On this appeal, the appellant, Thomas L. Driskill,
challenges the propriety of the trial court’s judgment; however,
he has not filed a record of the evidence heard below. In the
absence of a transcript or statement of the evidence, we must
assume that “had [a record] been preserved, [it] would have
contained sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s
factual findings” in support of its judgment. Sherrod v. Wix,
849 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Tenn.App. 1992). See also McDonald v. Ohoh,
772 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn.App. 1989); Irvin v. City of
Clarksville, 767 S.W.2d 649, 653 (Tenn.App. 1987); Gotten v.
Gotten, 748 S.W.2d 430, 432 (Tenn.App. 1988).
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to
the provisions of Rule 10(b), Rules of the Court of Appeals.1
1
Rule 10(b), Rules of the Court of Appeals, provides as follows:
The Court, with the concurrence of all judges
2
Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellant. This case is
remanded to the trial court for enforcement of the lower court’s
judgment and for the collection of costs assessed there, all
pursuant to applicable law.
__________________________
Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.
CONCUR:
________________________
Houston M. Goddard, P.J.
________________________
Herschel P. Franks, J.
participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or
modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum
opinion when a formal opinion would have no
precedential value. When a case is decided by
memorandum opinion it shall be designated ‘MEMORANDUM
OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not be
cited or relied on for any reason in a subsequent
unrelated case.
3