Baskin v. Meadors
| Decision Date | 09 November 1943 |
| Docket Number | 14686. |
| Citation | 27 S.E.2d 696,196 Ga. 802 |
| Parties | BASKIN v. MEADORS, Solicitor General. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
A judgment denying relief on a petition brought by the owner of premises padlocked as a nuisance under the Code, § 58-101 et seq., on which there was a hearing, in which he asserted his lack of knowledge of the illegal purpose for which his tenant, the defendant in the original proceeding, used the premises, and praying that he (the owner) be permitted to reopen the same will not be disturbed where it appears that on such hearing the evidence was sufficient to show guilty knowledge on the part of such owner.
The plaintiff is the owner of what is referred to as a road house, or eating place, known as Dixie Drive, Inn, near Carrollton, Georgia. It was operated by one Goff. The solicitor general brought in the superior court a petition against Goff, in which it was represented that the inn was being operated in such a manner as to annoy the public; that it tended to injure the health and to corrupt the morals that intoxicating liquors were there being kept and sold that drinking and loitering was allowed on the premises; that the same amounted to a blind tiger, and that the place should be closed and abated as a nuisance. At the hearing an order was entered, declaring the said premises as a public nuisance, enjoining goff from carrying on any business whatever on said premises, and that the building be padlocked until further order of the court. The present petition by Baskin, recites the aforesaid facts just stated and alleges, that the building is one of a large value, is now unoccupied, and is deteriorating; that he was not a party to the proceeding to close the place; that Goff was merely his tenant, the landlord being at the time in the United States Army stationed in Texas, and had no knowledge of the said proceedings or of the judgment of the court thereon; and that he desires to open the place for the conduct of a legitimate business. He prays that the solicitor general be required to show cause why the place should not be opened and for general relief.
At the hearing, after the introduction of evidence, the judge entered the following order: This order was excepted to for the following reasons:
(1) That the undisputed evidence shows that at the time the building was padlocked the plaintiff was serving in the U.S. Army, stationed in Texas, and had no notice of the proceeding whatsoever.
(2) That he was not a party to the proceedings when said building was padlocked as a nuisance; that he was serving in the U.S. Army; and that no proceedings could be had against him at that time.
(3) That the petition to close the building as a nuisance was against one Harry Goff, and the judgment on said petition was not, and is not, binding upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carson v. State ex rel. Price, s. 23040-23042
...See in this connection, Henson v. Porter, 149 Ga. 83(2), 99 S.E. 118; Ogletree v. Atkinson, 195 Ga. 32(3), 22 S.E.2d 783; Baskin v. Meadors, 196 Ga. 802, 27 S.E.2d 696. For these reasons all of the demurrers were properly 2. We come now to the attacks made upon the injunction portions of th......
-
Chancey v. Hancock
...nor given notice or an opportunity to be heard, he would not be precluded from later seeking removal of the padlock. Baskin v. Meadors, 196 Ga. 802, 27 S.E.2d 696. 5. Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to authorize the padlocking order. In this connection he argues that b......
- Pullen v. Meadors
- White v. State