(1 Harper and James, op.cit. supra, at § 3.15, p. 258; Prosser, Law of Torts (3d ed. 1964) § 23, p. 125. See e.g., Mason v. Hawes (1884) 52 Conn. 12, 16 [52 Am.Rep. 552]; McIntyre v. Murphy (1908) 153 Mich. 342, 346-347 [116 N.W. 1003, 1004-1005, 15 Ann.Cas. 802]; Lobdell v. Keene (1901) 85 Minn. 90, 101 [88 N.W. 426, 430]; Strauel v. Lubeley (1915) 186 Mo. App. 638, 643-644 [172 S.W. 434, 435-436]; Mosseller v. Deaver (1890) 106 N.C. 494, 496-498 [ 11 S.E. 529, 530, 8 L.R.A. 537, 19 Am.St.Rep. 540]; Weatherly v. Manatt (1919) 72 Okla. 138, 139-140 [ 179 P. 470, 471]; Walgreen Co. v. Walton (1932) 16 Tenn. App. 213, 229 [ 64 S.W.2d 44, 53]; Ray v. Dyer (Tex.Civ.App. 1929) 20 S.W.2d 328, 330; Buchanan v. Crites (1944) 106 Utah 428, 436 [ 150 P.2d 100, 103]. See also Whitney v. Brown (1907) 75 Kan. 678, 681-683 [90 P. 277, 278, 11 L.R.A.N.S. 468, 12 Ann.Cas. 768]; Rest.2d Torts, § 185, com. a.)

This principle is based on the policy that defendants should not be permitted to complain about the lack of exactness or precision in the proof regarding the amount of damages when their wrongdoing created the damages in the first place. Walgreen Co. v. Walton, 16 Tenn.App. 213, 223, 64 S.W.2d 44, 50 (1932); 1 RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FOR LOST PROFITS § 5.2, at 385. Parties seeking to recover lost profits damages would be well advised to provide the best available proof as to the amount of their loss that the particular situation permits.

The fact that the damages, from the very nature of the tort, could be figured only approximately has no legal significance. Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 282 U.S. 555, 51 S.Ct. 248, 75 L.Ed. 544; Walgreen Co. v. Walton, 16 Tenn. App. 213, 64 S.W.2d 44, petition for certiorari denied by Supreme Court of Tennessee July 19, 1933. The court instructed the jury that it should find for State Tire if from the preponderance of the evidence it found that Shell had interfered with State Tire's potential source of supply of petroleum products on the termination of the relations between the parties.

e was assigned to the Consolidated Bank pursuant to the option given that bank in the agreement of February 9, 1925, it is clear that by the transaction of May 1, 1925 the Arizona Bank was discharged from all obligations arising from privity of estate and the Consolidated Bank became liable as tenant under the lease. Willison v. Watkins, 3 Pet. 43, 7 L.Ed. 596; In re Bayley, D.C., 177 F. 522; McLeran v. Benton, 43 Cal. 467; Potts-Thompson Liquor Co. v. Potts, 135 Ga. 451, 69 S.E. 734; Campbell v. Short, 65 Okla. 312, 166 P. 438; Forrest v. Durnell, 86 Tex. 647, 26 S.W. 481; Johnson v. Thompson, 185 Ala. 666, 668, 64 So. 554; Essex Lunch v. Boston Lunch Co., 229 Mass. 557, 118 N.E. 899; Speed v. Jay, Tex.Civ.App., 267 S.W. 1033; Fanta v. Maddex, 80 Cal.App. 513, 252 P. 630; Machinist v. Koorkanian, 82 N.H. 249, 132 A. 256; Gusman v. Mathews, 29 Ohio App. 402, 163 N.E. 636; Dumontier v. Bailey, 144 Misc. 197, 258 N.Y.S. 409; Pan American Petr. Corp. v. Parker, 230 Ala. 178, 160 So. 220; Walgreen Co. v. Walton, 16 Tenn. App. 213, 64 S.W.2d 44; Williams v. Safe Deposit Trust Co., 167 Md. 499, 175 A. 331; 68 Beacon St. v. Sohier, 289 Mass. 354, 194 N.E. 303. See 35 C.J. 995, § 95.

Indeed, Tennessee law has historically imposed the burden of information on the second lessee, stating "a subtenant is bound to take notice of the terms of the original lease[.]" Walgreen Co. v. Walton, 64 S.W.2d 44, 48 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1932). The Court sees no reason why the same burden would not pass to an assignee who takes subject to the same rights, nor can it find any legal authority that would impose an additional duty onto the landlord merely because a lease was assigned rather than subleased.

Code Ann. § 66-28-504, Tennessee has long recognized a common law tort of wrongful eviction. See e.g.,Philp v. Southeast Enterprises, LLC , 2018 WL 801663 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2018) ; Harris v. Dobson-Tankard Co ., 41 Tenn.App. 642, 298 S.W.2d 28, 32 (1956) ; Walgreen Co. v. Walton , 16 Tenn.App. 213, 64 S.W.2d 44 (1932). The availability of a tort claim in addition to the statutory claim does not solve the Connors’ problem.

See e.g., Philp v. Southeast Enterprises, LLC, 2018 WL 801663 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2018); Harris v. Dobson-Tankard Co., 298 S.W.2d 28, 32 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1956); Walgreen Co. v. Walton, 64 S.W.2d 44 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1932).

Such damages are not based so much upon the nature and extent of the injury as they are upon the oppression of the party who does the injury. Louisville N. Railroad Co. v. Ray, 101 Tenn. 1, 46 S.W. 554 (1898), Cumberland Telephone Telegraph Co. v. Shaw, 102 Tenn. 313, 52 S.W. 163 (1899), Knoxville Traction Co. v. Lane, 103 Tenn. 376, 53 S.W. 557, 46 L.R.A. 549 (1899), Union Railway Company v. Carter, 129 Tenn. 459, 166 S.W. 592 (1914), Stepp v. Black, 14 Tenn. App. 153 (1913), Walgreen Co. v. Walton, 16 Tenn. App. 213, 64 S.W.2d 44 (1932), Herstein v. Kemker, 19 Tenn. App. 681, 94 S.W.2d 76 (1936), Allen v. Melton, 20 Tenn. App. 387, 99 S.W.2d 219 (1936), Nashville, C. St. L. Ry. v. Harrell, 21 Tenn. App. 353, 110 S.W.2d 1032 (1937), Pratt et al. v. Duck, 28 Tenn. App. 502, 191 S.W.2d 562 (1945), Southwestern Aviation v. Hurd, 209 Tenn. 639, 355 S.W.2d 436 (1961), Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Stevenson, 212 Tenn. 178, 368 S.W.2d 760 (1963). Although the dominant purpose for the allowance of punitive damages in Tennessee is similar to Florida and Virginia, as found by the Fifth Circuit Court in the McNulty case, we do not reach the same conclusion as the Fifth Circuit on the public policy issue for the following reasons.

Also, a tenant is entitled to recover the reasonable anticipated profits from his business, if any, from the date of eviction to the date when the lease by its own terms expires. Everson v. Albert, 261 Mich. 182, 246 N.W. 88; Kenney v. Braun, 113 Neb. 12, 201 N.W. 641; Walgreen Co. v. Walton, 16 Tenn. App. 213, 64 S.W.2d 44. As to the finding (1), "loss of supplies and equipment," there is no evidence that the defendant converted the property claimed to have been lost, or is there any evidence that the defendant in anywise interfered with the plaintiff's removal of this property from the premises.

"And it is settled that if a person purchases an estate from the owner, knowing it to be in possession of tenants, he is bound to inquire into their estates, and is affected with notice of all the facts in relation thereto." And in the case of Walgreen Company v. Walton, 16 Tenn. App. 213, 221, 64 S.W.2d 44, 48, the Court said: "Where the lessee is in possession, the purchaser takes subject to the lease."