Cunningham v. Rice
Supreme Court of Georgia
In Equity, in Eloyd superior court. Decision by Judge Hammond, at chambers, Dec. 9, 1858. The defendant in error, John H. Rice, filed this bill to enjoin plaintiff in error, 0. T. Cunningham, from erecting a steam flouring mill in the city of Rome.
Read the full summary
In Equity, in Eloyd superior court. Decision by Judge Hammond, at chambers, Dec. 9, 1858. The defendant in error, John H. Rice, filed this bill to enjoin plaintiff in error, 0. T. Cunningham, from erecting a steam flouring mill in the city of Rome. The allegations of the bill were, that complainant’s residence was about 300 feet from the site of the proposed mill — a street intervening — that said mill would be a nuisance to complainant — the smoke, sparks and soot therefrom would greatly disturb and annoy himself and family, and seriously diminish the value of his property. The bill was…
1Opinion of the Court
*32 By the Court.
Lumpkin J.
delivering the opinion.
In Mygatt et al. vs. Goetchius, (20 Geo. Rep. 350,) this court held that when taking the bill and answer, the structure complained of will not prima facie, constitute a nuisance — the injunction will not be continued; but that the party will proceed at his peril — the whole subject being under the control of the jury at the hearing.
We re-affirm the doctrines of that case, and agree that it fully covers and controls this. Indeed, this is a much weaker case than that.
Judgment reversed.
2Cited by2 opinions
- City of Quitman v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of Georgia · 1918
- Blackman Health Resort v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1921