O'brien v. Harris
| Decision Date | 17 November 1898 |
| Citation | 105 Ga. 732,31 S.E. 745 |
| Parties | O'BRIEN . v. HARRIS et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Equity—Injunction—Commission of Chime.
Equity has no jurisdiction, upon the petition of individuals, to interfere in mattersmerely criminal, or to enjoin any one from the commission of a crime, when it does not appear that the acts complained of affected any property rights of the petitioners.
(Syllabus by the Court)
Error from superior court, Warren county; Seaborn Reese, Judge.
Suit by J. I. Harris and others against Joe O'Brien. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
Benj. H. Hill, for plaintiff in error.
E. P. Davis and James Whitehead, for defendants in error.
This was a suit by individuals to enjoin the violation of a penal statute. The petition itself does not disclose any particular injury to the property of the complainants resulting from such violation. The only allegation on this point is that some of the petitioners own real estate near the town in which the sale of liquors is being had, and that such sale injures and damages their property, interferes with their business, and is hurtful to the best interests of the church of which they are trustees. There is no allegation whatever how their property is injured, or that the act complained of affects their rights any more than it does all other persons who come within the sphere of its operation. On the hearing, there was an absolute want of any proof tending to show any private injury, or any damage whatever to the property rights of the plaintiffs. Manifestly, then, the object of this petition was not to redress a private grievance, but to enjoin the perpetration of an alleged public wrong. We cannot conceive upon what theory equity could interfere in such a matter, except upon the idea of restraining the commission of acts which amount to a nuisance; but, if the facts alleged in the petition constitute a nuisance, it is of a public, and not of a private, nature, for it is not limited in its injurious effect to one or a few individuals. In such a case no right of action lies to any individual; but, if any exist, it should be instituted in the name of the state, upon information filed by the solicitor general of the circuit. Civ. Code, §§ 3858, 4761. The doctrine is too well established to require any lengthy discussion that equity never interferes at the instance of the individual citizen or person in matters merely criminal, or merely immoral, which do not affect any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Georgia Ry. & Elec. Co. v. Town of Oakland City
...of the civil rights of the complainant and his business, and cause irreparable damage. Injunction was denied. See, also, O'Brien v. Harris, 105 Ga. 732, 31 S.E. 745. case of City of Atlanta v. Gate City Gaslight Co., supra, was discussed and explained. This ruling was repeated in Mayor, etc......
-
Campbell v. Jackman Bros.
...155 Ind. 526, 58 N. E. 703); the illegal selling of intoxicating liquors (Campbell v. Schofield [Pa.] 29 Leg. Int. 325; O'Brien v. Harris, 105 Ga. 732, 31 S. E. 745)--which list might be indefinitely prolonged, showing a uniformity of adjudication upon questions of this same general nature.......
-
Campbell v. Jackman Bros.
... ... 526, 58 N.E. 703); ... the illegal selling of intoxicating liquors ( Campbell v ... Schofield [Pa.] 29 Legal Intel. 325; O'Brien v ... Harris , 105 Ga. 732, 31 S.E. 745)--which list might be ... indefinitely prolonged, showing a uniformity of adjudication ... upon questions of this same ... ...
-
Dean v. State
...of a crime, when it does not appear that the act complained of affected any property rights of the" individuals ( O'Brien v. Harris, 105 Ga. 732, 31 S.E. 745), equity has jurisdiction, in a proper case, to enjoin a nuisance upon information filed by the solicitor general. Under Civil Code 1......