Anthony v. Chicopee Mfg. Corp. of Georgia

• Decision Date: 13 April 1929
• Docket Number: 6798.
• Citation: 147 S.E. 887,168 Ga. 400
• Parties: ANTHONY v. CHICOPEE MFG. CORPORATION OF GEORGIA et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

147 S.E. 887

168 Ga. 400

ANTHONY v. CHICOPEE MFG. CORPORATION OF GEORGIA et al.

No. 6798.

Supreme Court of Georgia

April 13, 1929

Syllabus by the Court.

Where a corporation (and the same would be true of an individual) owned a tract of land containing several thousand acres, upon which were erected a large manufacturing plant and also a large number of houses at a convenient distance for occupation by its employees as tenants, and where there was also laid out streets or ways for use by pedestrians and vehicles, and there was no other way of approach to the houses occupied by the tenants, such ways, or those of them as were intended for the use of vehicles, might be used by a retail dealer who sold groceries, milk, and other articles of necessity in the homes of the tenants, for the purpose of delivering goods which had been purchased by the tenants with the understanding that they should be delivered; and the owners of the land upon which the houses were built would not have a right to prohibit such use of the ways or streets. The tenants themselves having the right of ingress and egress over these ways, those who visited them for social purposes or for lawful business purposes would have the right to use the ways.

(a) The right to prohibit the use of the ways in question by hawkers or peddlers is not involved in this record.

(b) Nor is the question involved as to whether or not the owners of the land upon which the houses stood, that are now occupied by tenants, could make a special contract with the tenants by which the use of the ways would be restricted.

(c) A court of equity has jurisdiction to prevent the owners of the land over which the ways in question were constructed from wrongfully preventing the use of the ways by a merchant, who had sold groceries, milk, and other articles of necessity to a tenant of the owners of the land, from going over them for the purpose of making a delivery of goods which had been ordered or purchased.

It follows from what is said above that the court erred in refusing the injunction prayed in this case.

Error from Superior Court, Hall County; I. H. Sutton, Judge.

Petition for injunction by George Anthony against the Chicopee Manufacturing Corporation of Georgia and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Russell C.J., dissenting.

B Frank Whelchel and G. F. Kelley, both of Gainesville, for plaintiff in error.

Edgar B. Dunlap, Jones & Reid, and B. P. Gaillard, Jr., all of Gainesville, for defendants in error.

BECK P.J.

George Anthony brought petition against Chicopee Manufacturing Corporation et al., and sought injunction to restrain them from interfering with him and his business as a grocery merchant and from interfering with the delivery of goods purchased by tenants residing in the houses built by the defendant corporation upon lands owned by it. That corporation is the owner of a large tract of land in Hall county, near the city of Gainesville, Ga., on which is maintained and operated a large industrial plant for the purpose of manufacturing surgical gauze, cheesecloth buntings, and similar fabrics. It further appears that connected with and as a necessary part of this plant and enterprise, it laid out and constructed and built a mill village of paved streets, modern street lights, sanitary drainage and sewerage, with up-to-date equipment and well built and equipped dwellings for the housing of the employees of said plant and enterprise. These houses are equipped with conveniences which make for comfort, cleanliness, and health, and insure the best sanitary conditions. This plant was constructed and is being maintained of high-grade products, like those enumerated, for the purpose of securing healthful, clean, and sanitary conditions under which these products might be made. It was shown that in order to secure such living conditions it was necessary to expend large sums of money. It was shown that the mill, buildings, equipment, paved streets, lights, village, and other conveniences mentioned are all located on the private property of the defendant corporation, and are on the large tract of land located as aforesaid, and that all of it is the private property of the defendant corporation, and that it all forms one connected plant, plan and arrangement. It was shown that in order that it might secure the ends contemplated, it sought to maintain exclusive dominion and control over its property, and to prevent intrusion on the property by objectionable persons and to prevent people from carrying on businesses on its property, contrary to its wishes. Trespass signs were placed on the property and at the entrances to streets, warning the public that this was private property, and that no trespassing would be allowed on or about it. The village, property, and streets were at all times policed and guards stationed to keep off objectionable persons or any person who might attempt to go on the property without permission of defendant corporation.

A contract was signed by the employees living in the village and occupying the houses thereof, providing that the premises in the village should not be used for any purpose except for the purpose of a home place, and that in accepting the terms and conditions of the lease contract the employees agreed "to abide by, obey, and maintain all rules and regulations of the village that are or may hereafter be prescribed by said Chicopee Manufacturing Corporation during the duration of this lease contract." It was also shown that almost all the goods manufactured by the plant of defendant are exclusively for surgical use and for use by physicians in ministering to the sick, and defendant is anxious that the very best sanitation possible be used in its village and among its employees and that they be kept from the use of anything that might produce sickness. To secure this end defendant invested large sums of money in a private dairy with the best modern equipment, in order to furnish its employees with proper milk. The cows of this dairy are inspected weekly and kept in the best of condition. The defendant furnishes this milk at absolute cost, and does not make a cent of profit on its investment...