Case Name: BASKIN v. MEADORS, solicitor-general
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1943-11-09
Citations: 196 Ga. 802
Docket Number: No. 14686
Parties: BASKIN v. MEADORS, solicitor-general.
Judges: All the Justices concur, except Atkinson and Wyatt, JJ., disqualified.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 196
Pages: 802–805

Head Matter:
BASKIN v. MEADORS, solicitor-general.
No. 14686.
November 9, 1943.
Willis Smith, for plaintiff in error.
L. L. Meadors, solicitor-general, contra.

Opinion:
Grice, Justice.
The evidence was ample to support the finding of fact by the judge that the petitioner had knowledge of and participated in the unlawful acts which resulted in the original order padlocking the premises while rented to Goff. It must be held that none of the points involved in the assignment of error can be resolved in accordance with the insistence of the plaintiff, if any regard at all is paid to the principle of stare decisis. It is doubtful whether in the reasons following the assignment of error it was intended to urge that his building could not be abated as a nuisance on account of the fact that at that time he was serving in the Army of the United States; but if such be the contention, it can not be sustained. See City of Cedartown v. Pickett, 194 Ga. 508 (22 S. E. 2d, 318). It may be conceded that the order padlocking the place wherein Goff, the tenant, was the only defendant did not ex proprio vigore subject Baskin, the owner, to the burden of a permanent injunction as to its use. Compare Henson v. Porter, 149 Ga. 83 (99 S. E. 118); Ogletree v. Atkinson, 195 Ga. 32 (22 S. E. 2d, 783). It does not, however, follow that the judge erred in refusing to grant to the owner the relief prayed for merely because he had no notice of the original proceeding. The very fact that the petition was entertained and there was a hearing thereon indicates a clear recognition by the solicitor-general, and by the judge, of the soundness of the basis of the ultimate contention of the plaintiff that the owner had a right to be heard in order to show, if he could, his innocence of any guilty knowledge on his part. He was on it given a hearing, and it was then shown that he had knowledge of the illegal purpose for which the premises were being used. The decision therefore accords.with what was ruled in Henson v. Porter, and Ogletree v. Atkinson, supra. There is no merit in the constitutional attack. Mack v. Westbrook, 148 Ga. 690 (98 S. E. 339). No error is shown.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except Atkinson and Wyatt, JJ., disqualified.