Knox v. Reese

• Decision Date: 23 September 1919
• Docket Number: (No. 1228.)
• Citation: Knox v. Reese, 149 Ga. 379, 100 S.E. 371 (Ga. 1919)
• Parties: KNOX. v. REESE et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

149 Ga. 379

100 S.E. 371

KNOX.

v.REESE et al.

(No. 1228.)

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Sept. 23, 1919.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

George, J., dissenting in part.

Error from Superior Court, McDuffle County; H. C. Hammond, Judge.,

Suit for injunction by R. W. Reese and others against P. S. Knox.Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error.Affirmed.

Archibald Blackshear, of Augusta, for plaintiff in error.

P. B. Johnson and J. B. Burnside, both of Thomson, for defendants in error.

FISH, C. J. Four citizens, owning homes in the main residential section of the town of Thomson, brought an action against the defendant, alleging in substance as follows: The defendant is preparing to erect on a lot near the respective homes of the plaintiffs a public ginnery, and a feed-crushing outfit or mill, and for the purpose of operating the same to use a steam engine or engines and boilers; that the dust, dirt, and lint necessarily escaping from the gins will be thrown into the air and continuously blown into the residences of the plaintiffs, greatly to their hurt, vexation, and injury, and causing them a great amount of extra work in sweeping and dusting, in order to keep their homes clean and habitable, and will be injurious to the health of the inmates of plaintiff's homes; that the smoke from the engines and boilers used for running the ginnery and mill will be continuously blown into their homes, damaging their furniture and furnishings, and smoking and blacking their residences; that public gins and mills are run throughout the day, and frequently late at night, and the noise made by the machinery and the blowing of whistles will render the homes of the plaintiffs almost uninhabitable; that, if the ginnery and mill should be erected and operated, numbers of wagons and teams will be around the same, and the noise, confusion, and crowding of wagons and teams will greatly disturb and annoy plaintiffs while in their homes; that the respective homes of plaintiffs are of stated values, and the erection and operation of such ginnery and mill, for the reasons stated, will decrease the market value of their respective homes in designated amounts; and that the operation of the ginnery and mill, for the reasons stated, will be a nuisance, and will result in damage to the health, peace, and property of the plaintiffs.The prayer was for an injunction restraining the erection of such ginnery and mill.After the filing of demurrers, general and special, to the petition, and the answer of the defendant, the judge refused an interlocutory injunction.

The plaintiffs thereafter amended the petition substantially as follows: Since the refusal of an interlocutory injunction, the defendant has erected the ginnery and mill, and is operating the same, greatly to the damage of the plaintiffs in the respects and for the reasons set forth in the original petition.The amount in which each plaintiff has been damaged by the operation of the ginnery and mill since the refusal of the interlocutory injunction is set out, and there are prayers that the further operation of the ginnery and mill be enjoined as a nuisance, and that each of the plaintiffs recover against the defendant the amount of damage which each had suffered by the operation of the ginnery and mill.When the case came on for final trial, the defendant demurred, generally and specially, to the petition as amended—one of the grounds of demurrer being that distinct and separate claims are sought to be asserted by each of the plaintiffs against the defendant in one action; that the damages sought by each plaintiff are for different sums alleged to have been done the several plaintiffs by the defendant, the interest of each of the plaintiffs being several, and not joint; and that therefore there is a misjoinder of causes of action and partiesplaintiff.All of the demurrers were overruled, and the defendant excepted.

"[1] A nuisance is any tiling that worketh hurt, such inconvenience as would affect an ordinary reasonable man, or damage to another.Civil Code, § 4457.The maintenance and operation of a cotton ginning plant, in which machinery is used which separates dust and sand from the cotton and drives them with smoke into the air, and which produces noises by steam whistles and otherwise, and where the plant is so near residences that the comfortable enjoyment thereof is Interfered with, and the market value thereof depreciated for the reasons indicated,...