Campbell v. Hammock
| Decision Date | 15 November 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 19133,19133 |
| Parties | Frank M. CAMPBELL et al. v. Charies N. HAMMOCK et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Sanders, Thurmond & Hester, Augusta, for plaintiffs in error.
Mixon & Chambers, Oliver Mixon, Augusta, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
Petitioners alleged that they owned a building fronting on and within a few inches of the sidewalk of a named street in Augusta, Georgia, and that defendants' owned a building on an adjoining lot, the front of which sat back from the sidewalk about 35 feet, leaving that portion of petitioners' wall exposed; that petitioners placed an advertising sign on their exposed west wall and a neon sign on top of their building; that thereafter defendants erected a large outdoor advertising sign on the east edge of their lot and a few inches from petitioners' west wall, completely obscuring the sign on petitioners' wall as well as most of the neon sign on top of their building; that the billboard is not useful or ornamental, and defendants' only purpose in erecting it was to injure and damage petitioners and their motive was entirely malicious. Petitioners further alleged that it was not defendants' intention to use the billboard to advertise petitioners' wares and merchandise, but that they plan to use it for the purpose of advertising some commodity completely foreign to petitioners' stock in trade; that defendants have placed the Biblical quotation thereon: 'For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?'; that the close proximity to petitioners' store gives the impression that it is a part of their store and confuses the public and holds petitioners up to derision; that petitioners' business is damaged by maintenance of the billboard and by the obscuring of their sign; that defendant have plenty of space on other parts of their lot where they could place the billboard; that the erection and maintenance of the billboard constitutes a nuisance, which petitioners ask the court to abate. The trial court overruled general demurrers to which ruling the defendants excepted. Held:
1. The allegations of the petition as amended, to the effect that the erection of the billboard on defendants' own land was entirely malicious, that their only motive was to damage petitioners, and that the billboard was not ornamental or useful, is contradicted by other allegations to the effect that defendants were using it to display a Biblical quotation at the present, and that they intended to use it for advertising some commodity foreign to petitioners' business, and therein the petition failed to allege that the billboard was erected solely for a malicious purpose and did not serve a useful purpose, as contended by petitioners. Dumas v. Dumas, 205 Ga. 238(2), 52 S.E.2d 845; Bolton v. Morris, 209 Ga. 153(2), 71 S.E.2d 217; Prosser v. Brooks, 210 Ga. 763(2), 82 S.E.2d 700. Furthermore, said allegations are in the alternative; and construing the petition most strongly against the pleader, as must be done on general demurrer, petitioners allege that the billboard was to be used for a useful and lawful purpose for advertising some commodity. Wynndam Court Apartment Co. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Atlanta, 204 Ga. 501, 508, 50 S.E.2d 611, and citations.
2. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Obolensky v. Trombley
...with “no foundation for any inference of utility or advantage, real or fancied” to defendant) (quotation omitted.); Campbell v. Hammock, 212 Ga. 90, 90 S.E.2d 415, 416 (1955) (stating that billboard erected on one's “own land, which is not otherwise a nuisance, does not become one merely be......
-
Sanders v. Henry Cnty.
...a malicious purpose, the malicious purpose alone does not make the act a nuisance, where it serves a useful purpose. Campbell v. Hammock, 90 S.E.2d 415, 416 (Ga. 1955). Nuisance law is based on the premise that everyone has the right to use his property as he sees fit, as long as "the owner......
- Pierce v. State
-
Oklejas v. Williams, 65521
...Jillson v. Barton, 139 Ga.App. 767(1), 769, 229 S.E.2d 476. Compare, Grubbs v. Wooten, 189 Ga. 390, 5 S.E.2d 874; Campbell v. Hammock, 212 Ga. 90(2), 90 S.E.2d 415. 2. It is also alleged that the trial court erred in denying a motion for directed verdict made on the grounds that the evidenc......