Court Opinion

ID: 9778666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:15:35.052865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:12.456739
License: Public Domain

Opinion on Petition to Rehear
Plaintiff-in-error Joyce Raye Martin has filed a petition to rehear. The petition makes the point that the trial judge sustained the demurrers on the ground the violation of the right of privacy has not been recognized as an actionable tort in Tennessee, while this Court dismissed plaintiff-in-error’s appeal on the ground the facts alleged in her declaration would not make an actionable case if this tort were recognized here. It is argued the second ground of the demurrer on which we acted is not before us because the demurrants did not appeal' with respect to the second ground.
*474The ground on which the petition is based is not good and the petition must be denied.
Consideration was given to this point before the opinion was written, and it was decided on the state of the record and on authority that the second ground of the demurrer was before this Court for consideration.
In the first place, the first ground of demurrer of defendant, Knoxville News-Sentinel Company, is broad enough to sustain the opinion of the Court. It is: “That the first count of the declaration fails to state a cause of action upon which a judgment could be based.” While this ground may have been subject to attack in the circuit court for its breadth and generality, there was no such attack upon it and so it presented to the trial court and this Court both the question whether invasion of privacy is an actionable tort in Tennessee, and the question whether the declaration alleged facts making an actionable case for such violation.
It is worth mentioning that this construction seems tactily to have been agreed to by the plaintiff-in-error who permitted the defendants-in-error to argue and rely on the no actionable case ground without arguing that it was not before the Court, until done so by the petition to rehear.
 But we did not rely primarily on this proposition in disposing of the case on the second ground of the demurrer, but upon the general proposition annotated in 2 Tennessee Digest, Appeal and Error, No. 1854, that, where the lower court decides a case correctly, but upon an erroneous theory of law, the Supreme Court will affirm the holding, basing its decision on the correct theory; and that where questions of law, and not fact, are in*475volved, it is not necessary for all parties to appeal in order to invoke the application of the rale.
This practice is not only dictated by good sense, in that it avoids the rather ridiculous result of this Court being of opinion a declaration does not state an actionable case and yet being required to send it back in the face of an unacted upon ground of demurrer -which demolishes the case. Moreover, the rule has the support of authority from other jurisdictions. In 5 Am.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error, sec. 723, it is stated:
“The scope of appellate review is generally limited to matters complained of or points raised in the appeal, although the appellate court may sometimes take up points raised in the appeal, although sustain the decision appealed from by any argument for which there is a basis in the record. ’ ’
Again in sec. 727 of this same work, it is stated:
“According to the essence of its function, an appellate court is concerned with whether the holding, and not whether the reasoning, of the decision appealed from is correct, and generally a correct decision will not be disturbed on appeal because it is based on an incorrect ground, especially where the correct ground was formerly presented to the court below, though not there acted upon.”
This last statement is particularly applicable to this case, as the second ground of demurrer was not acted upon by the trial judge, who simply dismissed the case on the first ground of demurrer, leaving the defendants without grounds on which to except and appeal. Now, to send the case back on this petition to rehear in order that *476the trial judge might then sustain the second ground of demurrer is uncalled for by any rule of appellate practice recognized in Tennessee.
The petition to rehear is overruled and denied.
Burnett, Chief Justice, and Dyer, Chattin and Cre-son, Justices, concur.