Harrison v. Brooks

• Decision Date: 30 June 1856
• Docket Number: N0. 95.
• Citation: 20 Ga. 537
• Parties: William Harrison, plaintiff in error. vs. William H. Brooks, defendant.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

20 Ga. 537

William Harrison, plaintiff in error. vs. William H. Brooks, defendant.

N0. 95.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

JUNE TERM, 1856.

In Equity, in Randolph Superior Court. Decided by Judge KIDDOO, at Chambers, February 25th, 1856.

This was a bill filed by William H. Brooks against William Harrison. The bill charges that complainant is the owner of lots one and three, in square twelve; and also of lot three in square eleven, in the town of Cuthbert, Randolph County, Georgia; that lots Nos. I and 3 in square 12 have, for twenty years, been the site of a house used as a hotel or inn for the accommodation of the travelling public and of the citizens of Cuthbert, many of whom have been entertained thereat; that said house being thus kept, complainant, as well as the former proprietors, have depended, in a great measure, upon the profits arising from the same, for the support of themselves and families, and for a reasonable remuneration for their trouble and outlay in erecting suitable buildings, &c, for the accommodation of the public; that the annual receipts of said hotel business are ten thousand dollars or thereabouts.

The bill charges that to meet the increasing wants of the public, complainant has, within the last two years, erected a commodious hotel building on said lot No. I, in said square 12, containing 18 or 20 rooms, at a cost of about six thousand dollars; and that on account of its eligible situation, it is the most comfortable public house in Cuthbert; that by reason of its location, &c, it has, since its completion, received a large share of the transient and local custom—being a desirable boarding place for private families, and always receiving a portion of such patronage; that it has always been well adapted to the purposes for which it is used—being free from all nuisances and disturbances of every kind; and complainant expected it would remain so when he purchased said lot and erected said hotel, and that he would be permitted to enjoy all the benefits arising from said purchase.

The bill charges that William Harrison has recently purchased lots 1 and 2, in square No. II, in said town of Cuthbert, immediately in front of said hotel, and distant therefrom only 54 feet, and proposes to remove or has removed all the houses therefrom, and is now erecting thereon a large livery and sale stable; that the whole of said lots being 120feet square, is to be occupied by said stable and a horse lot or lots; that the stable is to be on the east side of said hotel, on which side is the private entrance for ladies, and also an upper piazza extending the whole length of said house, as well as the most desirable rooms in the house—such as are usually appropriated to ladies, private families, &c.; that the object of erecting said stable is to keep horses for hire and sale, and, complainant believes, if such is done he will have to abandon his house as a hotel, or sell the same at a greatly reduced price; or if he should have to retain it, its receipts would be so diminished as not to compensate him or pay his expenses for keeping such a house; that he and his guests would have to submit to loss of comfort and health occasioned by the offensive and unhealthy effluvia arising from the manure and decayed vegetable matter accumulating about said stable, attracting immense swarms of Hies, &c.; that much annoyance would result from the incessant stamping of horses, the collection of leaves and other trash in the stalls and on the lot.

The bill charges that defendant had been requested to desist from erecting said stable, which he refused to do, but is now engaged in erecting the same; that defendant was advised of complainant's intention to seek to restrain him from building, and on the 31st of January, 1856, deceived complainant by pretending that he did not intend to erect said stable on the lots near said hotel; that he had determined to erect it on a different lot far removed from said hotel, and had placed lumber for that purpose on said last mentioned lot; which lumber, the hill charges, was removed the next mornbig by sunrise to the lots near said hotel, and defendant, with a large number of workmen, commenced erecting said stable with a view to complete it before complainant could obtain an injunction—said defendant well knowing that the Judge of the South-Western Circuit, in which said town of Cuthbert is situated, had resigned his office, to take effect on the day defendant commenced building, and it was not known that any successor had been appointed, and said defendant hoping, by thus deceiving complainant, to finish said stablebefore such successor could be appointed, and before an injunction could be obtained.

The bill, after alleging that there was no Judge residing in the South-Western Circuit, prays that defendant be enjoined from building said stable. The bill was sanctioned by Judge Powers on the 2d of February, 1856. On the 23d of said month, said bill was amended. The amendment charges that as soon as complainant was apprised that defendant intended to build said stable near said hotel, he went to Talbotton to apply to Judge Worrill, for an injunction, and finding him absent, proceeded at once to Macon and procured an injunction from Judge Powers, travelling some 300 miles, going and returning and performing the trip with all possible expedition; that all the work done towards erecting said stable was done during the two days complainant was absent on said trip to Talbotton and Macon; that if said stable is permitted to be erected, it will cause complainant great loss of patronage, &c. The amendment further charges, that said stable was in an unfinished condition when complainant commenced proceedings to procure an injunction; that what had been done was done hastily and in an unworkmanlike manner, the object of defendant being to get said stable so far done as to be able to use it, believing that if he could do so, complainant's equity would be destroyed and an injunction could not be granted.

...