Long v. City of Elberton

• Decision Date: 28 October 1899
• Citation: 34 S.E. 333,109 Ga. 28
• Parties: LONG v. CITY OF ELBERTON.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

34 S.E. 333

109 Ga. 28

LONG v. CITY OF ELBERTON.

Supreme Court of Georgia

October 28, 1899

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The erection of a prison by the municipal authorities of a city within the limits thereof, is not an invasion of the property rights of the owner of adjacent lands, and therefore not the foundation of an action for damages against the city.

2. After the erection of such a building, it is the duty of the public authorities to use and maintain the same in a proper and orderly manner, and, if they permit it to be so negligently kept as to create a nuisance, the damage caused thereby may give a right of action to one who sustains special and particular injury, not for the erection, but for such negligent maintenance.

Error from superior court, Elbert county; S. Reese, Judge.

Action by N. G. Long against the city of Elberton. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

J. P Shannon and P. P. Proffitt, for plaintiff in error.

I. C Van Duzer and J. N. Worley, for defendant in error.

LITTLE J.

Plaintiff in error instituted an action to recover damages against the city of Elberton. He alleged: That he was the owner of a hotel building in said city, and eight brick storehouses adjoining and opposite his hotel. That he expended a large sum of money in the erection of said buildings, and which before the damage complained of were worth a large amount of money. That he and his family reside in the hotel, and that the same was made comfortable and pleasant for his family as well as his guests. That during the year 1897 the city of Elberton, without the consent of petitioner and against his protest, erected, within 100 feet of his property, a building known as the "City Prison," which is a brick structure, containing offices for the city, and a number of prison cells and lockups, in which violators of the city laws are confined. These are frequently drunk, boisterous, profane, obscene, and offensive, and frequently crowds of objectionable persons are gathered around the city prison, to the annoyance of the neighborhood. That the building is not provided with waterworks or sewers, and that slops and filth are carried therefrom daily, in full view of the public. That the prison emits foul air, unwholesome stenches, and the inmates make discordant and savage noises, and the city convicts are kept therein. That this building is so situated that it stands broadside to the hotel building, with no obstruction between the two buildings, and all the unpleasant accompaniments of the prison are in full view of the windows and piazzas of the hotel, and of persons dwelling therein or on the grounds attached thereto. He alleges that the same is a nuisance; that he endeavored to induce the city authorities not to construct the building at that place, informing them that it would injure his business and the value of his property, but they did so, over his protest. He alleges that the erection of the prison was a violation of the public duty, and a reckless disregard for his rights, and the maintenance of the same as situated is a gross wrong; that it renders his home undesirable, and his hotel building less desirable for a hotel, his storerooms less valuable for business, and has injured the market value of all his property above described, whereby he has been damaged the sum of $5,000; that the city authorities could easily have erected said prison elsewhere, where the damage it would cause would have been insignificant; that he himself offered to the city a lot in rear of his property which was convenient in every respect, but they refused to erect the prison on that lot; that it was located in its present place as the result of bad faith, and on account of ill will to petitioner. He alleges that the prison, and the manner in which it is used and kept, is a nuisance, and has greatly damaged his property, and that its erection was, and its maintenance is, a direct invasion of his rights, for which he is entitled to recover damages, under the constitution and laws of this state. The petition, as amended, was demurred to generally. The court sustained the demurrer, and the plaintiff in error excepted.

It is claimed by counsel for plaintiff in error that, since the adoption of the constitution of 1877, a municipal corporation is liable to an individual for damages to private property to the same extent, and under the same circumstances, that it is liable for property taken for public purposes, and we understand the present action is...