The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1882-01-11
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
REPORTED WEEKLY FOR THE CLARION, BY
ROBT. sHOTWELL, ATT0RNEY-AT-LAW.
JOHN MoCUTcHEN
OCTOBER TERM, 1882.

| REPORTED WEEKLY FOR THE CLARION, BY
ROBT. sHoTWELL, ATToRNEY-AT-LAw.
JOHN MoCUTcHEN
| D. NJ. BLAEToN ct al.
| Appeal from the Chancery Court o. Washing
! ton cou4ty Hon. w. G. Phelps Chancellor.
johnson Grass Case" This is an appeal
| from tn refusal of the Chancellor % Il ssolve
| the Injunction which had been granted IN the
cause. BY the agreement of the parties the
| case is to be considered and treated as il sub
mitted on final hearing and disposition on its
merits The gtavamen OF the bill is that the
defendant (appellants here) is about to on
his land contiguous to, or in the vicinity of
| lands of compliments, Johnson Grass seed
which are averred to be most pernicious seed
and will surely cause lands of compliments
to be overrun with this grass whereby they
will be rendered unfit for other purposes, and
unsuitable for the production of cotton, corn
and other crops usually produced i'll the
country. That this will constitute a nuisance,
for which the defendant cannot respond in
damages because of his insolvency. The
answer admits that the defendant is about to
sow the grass mentioned, but denies the per-
nicious character, as charged and that his
sowing will produce the results alleged by the
bill, and claims the right in defendant to sow
the seed. The testimony of the many witnesses
in the case is quite variant. 1t is clearly
BILE 1t makes excellent hay, in large quanti-
ties per acre, yielding as much as six tons
year on good land and seems suited to supply
a long felt want of the South. Statements and
opinions differ widely to the spreading of
the grass and its destructiblity and destruc-
tiveness of other crops. According to some of
the witnesses, it is an unmitigated curse,
threatening ruin to the land as to all else, OBJ
truding itself persistently where it is not want
ed carried far and wide by wind and water
I l.. u. g. Ii q.
pernicious roots full of joints close together
and each possessing the germ of a new growth
to form the fruitful cause of further propaga-
tiOn by seeds and roots in all the adj aeent
land, bidding defiance to all efforts to stay it's
dreaded march of destruction, and soon taking
exclusive occupancy of whole plantations,
which are thenceforth rendered unfit for any
thing else.
According to others, it is not disposed to
spread rapidly and is hard to propagate, even
with diligent effort, and is not destructive of
other crops and may be readily destroyed by
the means used 10 destroy other grasses. It
is said to have been brought from Guinea, on
the Western coast of Africa, to Jamaica,
whence it was taken to South Carolina, from
which some of its roots were brought more
than forty years ago to Alabama by Mr.. John
son, from whom it has its present name. Wit
nesses acquainted with it on the johnson farm
in Alabama differ widely about it as do wit
nesses who have known it elsewhere.
Rucks & Jayne aud W. P. & j. B. Harris for
Percy & Yerger and Nugent s. Melville for
appellees.
CAMPBELL, J.,
Held
l. The precise limits of ones Liberty to do
as he pieases with his own property it is often
difficult to define. 1t may be said that this
liberty stops just at the point where the
rights OF others beg n, but the inquiry arises,
what are the rights of others which operate to
restrict the exercise Of ones dominion over
his own properly? In Fisher .. Clark Al
Barb, 328, the Supreme Court of New York
used this language: Ones right to use his
property as he pleases is unlimited and un-l
qualified up to the point where the particular
use becomes nuisance" What is nuisance,
has been frequently announced, but whether
a particular thing is a nuisance is often hard
to decide. Every person has right to the
reasonable enjoyment of his property, and so
long as the use to which he devotes it violates
no rights of others, however much damage
others may sustain thefefrom his use is law
full, and it is damnum d6squs inj uria' Wood
Law of Nuisanees, p. 8. To constitute a nui-
saHce there must be riotGfion Of the rights Of
Others.
2 How far every one has the right to plant
on his own soil anything he pleases, which is
useful and beneficial, although the nature and
probable consequence may be its spreading to
the adjacent lands o. others, by what may
be called natural causes, is. so far as we
can learn, undecided by any Court. In
this case. we have controv Tsy between
proprieters of the fee sustaining &c other re-
iation to each other than ownership of neigh
boring lands imposes ss to the right of one to
plant on his own soil. 1t may be az incident
of the social state and eontiguity of territory.
that each owner must bear the Consequence of
the exercise of the right of every other pro-
prietor to pursue that particular kind of agri-
culture he may choose. 1t may be that un-
limited freedom in this respect to each pro-
prietOr is the surest guarantee of the good of
all We will not decide this now, but con-
tent ourselves with the suggestions made, and
place our conclusion on other grounds as
sufficient to sustain it.
5. Relief by injunction is so severe in its
consequences that is not to be granted in such |
a case, except when the right to it is clearly |
and eoncIusiVely made out. To interfere |
with ones right to use his own land for the |
production of what he pleases in a case of
doubt, would be a fragrant abuse of power.
1t is not enought to show probable or con-
tiDgent injury but il must be shown to be in.
evitable and undoubted. Woods Law of
Nuisanees 6. Green q Lake, 81 Miss. $40. |
We are embarrassed by the eentrariety of
statements and opinions in the testimony and |
the uncertainty thus created. If we maintain
the injunction wrongfully great harm may
thereby be done to appellant and the country |
If future developments shall place it by and |
doubt that the grass is an evil to be prevented |
and exterpated remedy may perhaps be |
found. The history and the habits lsf the |
grass are too little known and established to |
authorize its condemnation as q nuisance,
which is necessary to sustain the bill The |
grass may be neither an unmixed evil or
good. Time and trial will disclose its true
character.
A. If it be said that it will be too late, after
its introduction into the country, to stay the
evil, if it shall prove to be sueh ths teply Is
that it is already IN many places in Missis-
sippi end Arkansas and is in Washington
county and If its character is correctly |
portrayed by some of the witnesses, it must
soon have the exclusive occupancy Of the
whole land, and the dissolution of this in |
junction viii exert little influence on shis IA
eyitable result.
We dsUsrSe the decree Of sSs Chancellor and
disEiss The BIZ tritS0ut prejudice % tie rigkts Of