Where the Trial Court rules correctly, but states an erroneous reason for such ruling, the Appellate Court will uphold the ruling, basing its decision on what it conceives to be the correct theory. State ex rel. McConnell v. First State Bank, 22 Tenn. App. 577, 586, 124 S.W.2d 726, and numerous cases there cited; Blaylock v. Stephens, 36 Tenn. App. 464, 467-468, 258 S.W.2d 779. The judgment of the lower Court is affirmed.
But the fact that his Honor put his decision upon an erroneous ground does not necessarily mean that the decision itself was wrong. If the decision was right, though put upon an erroneous ground, it is our duty to affirm, resting our action upon what seems to us the correct theory. State ex rel. McConnell v. First State Bank, 22 Tenn. App. 577, 586, 124 S.W.2d 726, and numerous cases there cited. We think the Trial Court's decision was right. Defendant had the burden of proving there had been a novation.
Robertson v. Davis, 169 Tenn. 659, 90 S.W.2d 746, 751. See also Baker v. Baker, 24 Tenn. App. 220, 142 S.W.2d 737; American Nat. Ins. Co. v. McPhetridge, 28 Tenn. App. 145, 187 S.W.2d 640; State v. Benner, 182 Tenn. 395, 187 S.W.2d 609; State ex rel. McConnell v. First State Bank, 22 Tenn. App. 577, 124 S.W.2d 726; Needham v. Caldwell, 25 Tenn. App. 189, 154 S.W.2d 535; Fisher v. Durand, 179 Tenn. 635, 169 S.W.2d 671. Although several months elapsed between the final determination of intervenor's suit against the Bank and the assertion of her rights against the funds in the hands of King, it does not appear that the Bank was prejudiced by the delay and it is shown that she had received no personal notice of the final decision of the court in the former action prior to her return to Chattanooga shortly before her intervening petition was filed. "There can be no laches in failing to assert rights of which a party is wholly ignorant, and whose existence he had no reason to apprehend."
The State or one of its subdivisions is not bound by the act of its agent unless the agent was acting within the scope of his authority and ignorance of legal limitations upon the authority of public officials is no excuse. Every one dealing with them must take notice of such limitations. Kreis Co. v. City of Knoxville, 145 Tenn. 297, 303, 237 S.W. 55; Trotter v. Peterson et al., 166 Tenn. 142, 60 S.W.2d 149; State ex rel. v. First State Bank, 22 Tenn. App. 577, 588, 589, 124 S.W.2d 726; 43 Am. Jur. 73, Public Officers, Sec. 256. Assuming the foregoing to be the correct interpretation of the Act, all claimants having purchase orders, contracts in writing or warrants bearing the signature of the County Judge, whether signed before or after the purchase, are entitled to recover on their contracts.