City of Dublin v. Hobbs, 21698
| Decision Date | 25 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 21698,21698 |
| Citation | 126 S.E.2d 655,218 Ga. 108 |
| Parties | CITY OF DUBLIN, Georgia. v. Ruby C. HOBBS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Joseph H. Briley, Dublin, for plaintiff in error.
Jones & Douglas, Dublin, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This is an action for injunctive relief brought by a taxpayer against the City of Dublin, praying for the abatement of a public nuisance, which allegedly is specially injurious to the petitioner, the same being a continuing trespass and nuisance across the property of the petitioner, resulting from the overflow of a drainage ditch which is a part of the storm sewer system of said city and which has eroded her property, thereby damaging it and continuing to damage it and also damaging petitioner and her property by dumping water, garbage, sewage both sanitary and otherwise, decomposed matter, dead animals and other refuse on her property, the smells from same permeating the air with strong, obnoxious, putrid and rotten and nauseous odors, and creating a breeding place for mosquitoes, thereby creating a nuisance injurious to the petitioner and others and causing the dwelling of the petitioner to be uninhabitable and greatly reducing the rental value thereof. The answer of the city denied, in the main, the allegations of the petition and claimed said alleged ditch was the natural flow of a branch through her property, for which the city was not liable. After a trial of the issues as thus made by the pleadings, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff, to abate the nuisance, and for attorney's fees as prayed in the petition; and judgment was entered thereon accordingly. Thereafter, within the time allowed by law, the defendant filed its motions for new trial, which was later amended to add special grounds, and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in accordance with its previous motion for directed verdict. After a hearing thereon, both motions were overruled, and the exceptions are to these final judgments. Held:
1. Special grounds one and five of the amended motion for new trial, not having been argued orally or by brief, are deemed to have been waived and will not be considered further.
2. The evidence as to the issues in the case being in conflict, the court did not err in overruling the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; nor is there any merit in the general grounds of the motion for new trial.
3. The court did not err in refusing to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Columbus v. Myszka
...nonfeasance of failing to act for which the city has no liability. Code Ann. § 69-302. This court must disagree. City of Dublin v. Hobbs, 218 Ga. 108, 126 S.E.2d 655 (1962). The doctrine of discretionary nonfeasance recently has been applied to deny recovery when a municipality had exercise......
-
Ponce de Leon Condominiums v. DiGirolamo
...including attorney fees.' DeKalb County v. McFarland, 231 Ga. 649, 651, 203 S.E.2d 495, 499 (1974). See City of Dublin v. Hobbs, 218 Ga. 108, 110, 126 S.E.2d 655 (1962). The same testimony as to the appellee's early, persistent, and unheeded complaints which authorizes the verdict for punit......
-
Townsend and Ghegan Enterprises v. W. R. Bean & Son, Inc.
...the expenses of litigation. Piedmont Cotton Mills v. H. W. Ivey Const. Co., 109 Ga.App. 876, 137 S.E.2d 528; City of Dublin v. Hobbs, 218 Ga. 108, 110, 126 S.E.2d 655. 'Where there is a bona fide controversy for the tribunals to settle, and the parties cannot adjust it amicably, there shoul......
-
Hutchinson v. Tillman
...Alabama Great Sou. R. Co. v. Brock, 141 Ga. 840(2), 82 S.E. 225; Crews v. Crews, 219 Ga. 459, 463(1), 134 S.E.2d 27; City of Dublin v. Hobbs, 218 Ga. 108(2), 126 S.E.2d 655. The jury could have concluded that the pulpwood truck's driver was negligent in driving across the center line and co......