Case ID: ga_200/html/0497-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bell, Chief Justice. Jenkins, Presiding Justice,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roberts et al. v. Rich et al.; et vice versa.
    
   Bell, Chief Justice.

1. A nuisance per se is an act, occupation, or structure which is a nuisance at all times and under any circumstances, regardless of location or surroundings. Simpson v. DuPont Powder Co., 143 Ga. 465, 466 (85 S. E. 344, L. R. A. 1915E, 430); Wilson v. Evans Hotel Co., 188 Ga. 498, 500 (1) (4 S. E. 2d, 155).

2. Mere apprehension of irreparable injury from an alleged nuisance consisting of a house in the course of construction or alteration for a lawful business is not sufficient to authorize an injunction. Code, § 72-204; Richmond Cotton Oil Co. v. Castellaw, 134 Ga. 472 (4) (67 S. E. 1126); Thomoson v. Sammon, 174 Ga. 751 (3) (164 S. E. 45).

3. A wholesale grocery business in a residential section of a city is not necessarily a nuisance within itself, and therefore a court of equity will not enjoin the construction of a building to be used for that purpose, where there is no zoning regulation or restrictive covenant inhibiting such use. Standard Oil Co. v. Kahn, 165 Ga. 575 (1) (141 S. E. 643); Barton v. Rogers, 166 Ga. 802 (3) (144 S. E. 248); Thomoson v. Sammon, 174 Ga. 751 (4) (supra); Wingate v. Doerun, 177 Ga. 373 (4) (170 S. E. 226); Enzor v. Askew, 191 Ga. 576 (13 S. E. 2d, 374).

(a) If the building when completed should be operated in such a manner as to cause a nuisance, parties aggrieved may then apply to a court of equity and enjoin its operation in such manner. Pig’n Whistle Sandwich Shops Inc. v. Keith, 167 Ga. 735 (3) (146 S. E. 455); Pittard v. Summerour, 181 Ga. 349 (182 S. E. 20); Asphalt Products Co. v. Beard, 189 Ga. 610 (7 S. E. 2d, 172).

4. Under the preceding rulings, the petition did not state a cause of action, and it was not error to dismiss the same on general demurrer. Rushing v. Thigpen, 200 Ga. 313 (37 S. E. 2d, 180).

(a) In this view, it is unnecessary to determine any question as to validity of the alleged permit purporting to authorize the construction and use of such building as a wholesale grocery warehouse, since the result would be tbe same, regardless of the validity or invalidity of such a permit. ,

Nos. 15386, 15387.

February 21, 1946.

Rehearing denied March 5, 1946.

Judgment affirmed on the mam hill of exceptions.

All the Justices concur, except Wyatt, Justice, dissenting, and

Jenkins, Presiding Justice,

concurring specially, for the reasons stated in division 4 of tbe opinion in Rushing v. Thigpen, supra.

Gross-hill dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cheney & Hides, Thomas E. Latimer, and L. C. Homes Jr., for plaintiffs.

H. C. Schroeder, Albert E. Mayer, J. G. Roberts, and George D. Anderson, for defendants.