Gober v. Colonial Pipeline Co., 26970

• Decision Date: 11 February 1972
• Docket Number: No. 26970,26970
• Citation: 187 S.E.2d 275,228 Ga. 668
• Parties: Robert D. GOBER et al. v. COLONIAL PIPELINE COMPANY.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 275

187 S.E.2d 275

228 Ga. 668

Robert D. GOBER et al. v. COLONIAL PIPELINE COMPANY.

No. 26970.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 11, 1972.

Syllabus by the Court

1. This court will upon its own motion dismiss an appeal where it affirmatively appears that the questions presented have become moot or that a decision would be of no benefit to the complaining party.

2. The fact that the appellants might possibly derive some future benefit from a favorable adjudication on an abstract question, or that a decision would settle the question of costs, will not require this court to retain and decide the case.

3. It appearing without dispute that the acts which the appellants sought to have enjoined have been completed, a reversal of the judgments complained of would be ineffectual, and the case has become moot.

Howe & Howe, Richard C. Sutton, Tallapoosa, for appellants.

Bagby, Fudger & Foster, Arthur W. Fudger, Dallas, for appellee.

ALMAND, Chief Justice.

This appeal is from orders (a) granting the prayers of the appellee for an interlocutory injunction, and (b) denying the prayers of the appellants for an interlocutory injunction.

Colonial Pipeline Company in its complaint against Robert D. and Margaret Gober alleged that it was the owner and holder of a right (easement) to construct, maintain, inspect, etc., a pipeline for the transportation of liquids and/or gasses over and through a described tract of land owned by the defendants; that pursuant to the terms of said easement (a copy being attached to the complaint), it was in the process of constructing an additional line on the described premises in strict compliance with the terms of the easement; and that the defendants were openly, wilfully and overtly blocking a porting of plaintiff's easement. The prayers were that the defendants be restrained and enjoined from maintaining any obstruction across the property described in the easement and from interfering 'with the construction and completion of the pipeline across said easement.'

In their answer the defendants denied the material allegations of the plaintiff's complaint, and by cross-complaint alleged that the plaintiff had no valid easement or legal right and was trespassing on their property and had damaged their property in a stated amount. They prayed that the plaintiff's prayer for an injunction be denied; that it be enjoined from further proceeding with the construction of the pipeline on their property; and for judgment for damage already done to their property.

After a hearing, the court granted the plaintiff's prayers for an interlocutory injunction and denied the defendants' prayers for an interlocutory injunction. In its order the court stated: (a) The question of damages was left for the jury; (b) the question of any additional future easement for pipelines was not passed upon; and (c) that upon the application of either party, the court would consider the motion as to whether the...