Case Name: PHINIZY et al., executors, v. GARDNER, et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1924-10-17
Citations: 159 Ga. 136
Docket Number: No. 4158
Parties: PHINIZY et al., executors, v. GARDNER, et al.
Judges: All the Justices concur, except Hill, J., dissenting.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 159
Pages: 136–145

Head Matter:
PHINIZY et al., executors, v. GARDNER, et al.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
1. One wlio is the owner of the easement of burial in a cemetery is entitled to recover damages from any one who wrongfully interferes with such right. Jacobus v. Congregation of the Children of Israel, 107 Ga. 518 (33 S. E. 853, 73 Am. St. R. 141); Stewart v. Garrett, 119 Ga. 386 (46 S. E. 427, 64 L. R. A. 99, 100 Am. St. R. 179). If such trespass is a continuing one, a court of equity will enjoin it. Stovall v. Caverly, 139 Ga. 243 (77 S. E. 29). If we concede that the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law for the removal of the fences erected by the defendant across the private way to the cemetery, such remedy would not give adequate relief to the .plaintiff for the continued plowing and cultivation of the roadway. Such relief could only be obtained in equity.
2.'Where the main purpose of the injunction is not to require affirmative action, but to restrain the defendant from repeating a trespass, the in junction is not a mandatory one, although compliance' with it may require some affirmative action on the part of the party enjoined, such as the removal of a fence across the roadway to a cemetery. Spencer v. Tumlin, 155 Ga. 341 (116 S. E. 600).
No. 4158.
October 17, 1924.
Equitable petition. Before Judge Franklin. Richmond superior court. January 1, 1924.
Mrs. Mary B. Gardner and others brought an equitable petition against Jacob Phinizy, and alleged in substance the following: Oswald Eve, on March 10, 1826, conveyed by deed, which was recorded, to Catherine Fitzsimmons, Joseph Eve, Anderson Watkins, John Carmichael, Gilbert Longstreet, John Bones, Ann P. Cunningham, Sara Adams, and John P. Eve, and "their and each of their heirs forever, as joint tenants," the following described realty and right of way, to wit, "one acre of land eastward of my summer residence, and near thereto, and known as the family cemetery or burying-ground, which said-acre of land they, or a majority of them, may at any time hereafter lay off and enclose in square form, or nearly so, enclosing the monuments already erected there, upon the following conditions only: that the aforesaid acre of land shall not hereafter be appropriated to any other use than that of a burying-ground as hereinbefore contemplated and expressed. I do also annex to the foregoing the privilege of a wagon or carriage road through any lands that I now or may hereafter own, from the nearest public road to the aforesaid cemetery or' burying-ground, forever; reserving to myself the same or equal privileges in the use of said burying-ground heretofore granted to them, and none others." At the date of the deed Oswald Eve owned the land lying between the cemetery lot and -the Savannah road on the west, which was the nearest public road; and the wagon or carriage road referred to was located from the cemetery lot in a northwesterly direction, passing in front of the summer residence, also called the "cottage," and extending out into the Savannah road; and said wagon or carriage road was used continuously from the date of the deed until some time in the year 1922. The tract of laird through which the wagon or carriage road ran subsequently became the property of Sara Adams, one of the heirs and legatees of Oswald Eve; and Sara Adams by her will dated January 2, 1851, and probated March 7, 1851, in the court of ordinary of Bichmond County, devised the land with this proviso: "that the piece of ground now appropriated as a family burying-ground, together with an acre of land adjoining, to be laid off by my executors, shall be reserved for the purposes of a graveyard only, and that a right of way from the Savannah road be always reserved over the intervening land for the passage of funerals." In 1922 the defendant, without previous knowledge by plaintiffs of his intention, built a wire fence across the wagon or carriage road at the western line of the cemetery lot and at the eastern line of the Savannah road, and otherwise obstructed the same by felling trees and plowing, so that the wagon or carriage road could not-be used for any purpose whatever. The wagon or carriage road as finally agreed upon, located, and used by the then owners of the land through which it extended was 25 feet wide, and ran in a practically straight line as an avenue through the woods from the Savannah road easterly in front of the residence known as the "cottage" and on to the line of the cemetery lot. Each of the plaintiffs is a lineal heir of one of the grantees in the deed from Oswald Eve, and is entitled to use said cemetery as a burial lot and to use the wagon or carriage road as a means of access thereto; and they bring this action in their own right and for the benefit of others having the same rights. The defendant had both constructive and actual notice of the location and existence of the wagon or carriage road before he purchased the land through which it runs, and before he obstructed the same. The injury to plaintiffs by the closing of the roadway is, from its nature, irreparable in damages, and they have no adequate remedy at law. The prayers were: (1) That the defendant be required to remove said obstructions to the roadway and restore it to its former condition. (2) That he be permanently enjoined from maintaining any obstructions to the roadway. (3) For process.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except Hill, J., dissenting.
The defendant having filed demurrers both general and special, the plaintiffs amended their petition and alleged, among other things, that Sara Adams was one of the grantees under the deed of Oswald Eve of March 7, 1826, and the tract of land over which the road passes was devised by her in her said will to her two nieces, Hannah B. Longstreet and Emma B. Longstreet, during their lives, with remainder to their children, as contained in paragraph 8 of the will,- which contained the following: "provided that the piece of ground now appropriated as a family burial-ground, together with an acre of land adjoining, to be laid off by my executors, shall be reserved for the purposes of a graveyard only, and that a. right of way from the Savannah road to said graveyard be always reserved over the intervening land for the passage of funerals," etc. At the date of the making of the will the road through the tract of land then in use was the same road referred to in the deed of Oswald Eve of March 10, 1826, and said road had been in constant use for that intervening period and continued in such use up to the time defendant committed his trespass by closing the same. The plaintiffs are descended from the grantees in the above-described deed. It is further alleged that "all of the immediate grantees in the said deed from Oswald Eve dated [died] many years ago, and none of them ever conveyed or attempted to convey said cemetery lot or the easement thereto in the right of way extending out to the Savannah road." The defendant holds the land under a deed from L. W. Mays, dated December 19, 1921, and recorded, and Mays held under a deed from E. J. Dorris and A. T. Heath, dated November 28, 1921, also recorded, containing the following provision: "There is excepted from the conveyance, and reserved, one acre of land in the form of a square, embracing the family cemetery, and with a right of way and use of road leading from the cemetery to the Savannah road." E. J. Dorris and A. T. Heath held under a' deed from James L. Sibley and Mrs. Mattie Sibley, dated October 23, 1919, and recorded, conveying 58-^ acres known as the cottage tract, but containing the following provision: "except one acre in the form of a square, with all timber thereon, which is the old family burying-ground, together with the right of way in perpetuity over and across the land herein conveyed, from the Savannah road to the cemetery; said right of way .to be for the use and benefit of all persons desiring to use the aforesaid cemetery;" and the reservation of the right of way was record notice to Jacob Phinizy and said Sibley held under partition proceedings of the land of Sara Adams, and' the return expressly stated that "title to the cemetery is in no way altered." The right of way was an easement running with the land by written grant and reservation as heretofore set out, and was not merely a right of way by prescription over the land of another, though it had been used for the purposes stated for'nearly, if not more than, a hundred years; and the action of the defendant in closing up the road was not merely an obstruction of the road, but'was a trespass upon the property right of these plaintiffs' and was a nuisance in law and is now a continuing nuisance. The plaintiffs further prayed, that the de7 fendant be restrained permanently from continuing the trespass and the operation of the nuisance, and that he be restrained from further interfering with the rights of plaintiffs to the use of the right of way from the Savannah road to the cemetery of their ancestors; and that if the court should hold that equitable relief would be afforded by permitting the defendant to place a gate in the fence at each end of the road, then they prayed for such equitable relief.
The defendant demurred to the petition upon the grounds, among others: that it appears on the face of the petition that plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law; that the only relief sought by the petition was mandatory injunction, that the petition seeks, not to restrain, but to perform acts; that the petition fails to allege that the grantees, or any of them, other than Sara Adams, are dead, and, if deceased, that such other grantees died testate or intestate, and, if intestate, that there are no administrations on their respective estates; and with respect to Sara Adams the petition fails to show to whom she devised tile easement reserved when devising the servient land, or to whom such alleged easement passed at her death. An amendment was filed to meet the special demurrer. The court overruled the demurrer, and the defendant excepted.
Hamilton Phinizy, for plaintiff in error.
William II. Fleming, contra.