Tate v. Mull

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Citation: Tate v. Mull, 147 Ga. 195, 93 S. E. 212 (Ga. 1917)
• Decision Date: 18 August 1917
• Docket Number: 541.
• Parties: TATE v. MULL.

93 S.E. 212

147 Ga. 195

TATE v. MULL.

No. 541.

Supreme Court of Georgia

August 18, 1917

Syllabus by the Court.

The operation of a cotton ginnery, so as to force the cotton seed into a seedhouse by "air suction," which method causes a great quantity of dust to be expelled through the cracks of the seedhouse and into the dwelling house of an adjacent proprietor, to his great discomfort and injury, is an invasion of the latter's property rights, and amounts to a nuisance.

If the injury caused to the adjacent property be continuing so as to cause a constantly recurring grievance, injunction is an available remedy.

The construction of the ginnery without objection from the adjacent proprietor will not debar such proprietor from complaining of a nuisance and resultant injury due to the improper operation of the ginnery.

Error from Superior Court, Floyd County; Moses Wright, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Leila Tate against T. H. Mull. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

See also, 145 Ga. 192, 88 S.E. 922.

Harris & Harris, of Rome, for plaintiff in error.

McHenry & Porter, of Rome, for defendant in error.

EVANS P.J. (after stating the facts as above).

Civ Code, § 4457, defines a nuisance as:

"Anything that worketh hurt, inconvenience, or damage to another; and the fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful, or such as would affect only one of fastidious taste, but it must be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man."

The operation of a cotton gin is not per se a nuisance, but it may become so under certain circumstances. A landowner has no right to conduct a lawful business on his own land in such a way as to invade and injure his neighbor's property. The evidence was to the effect that the defendant erected a seedhouse near his ginnery and a few yards from the plaintiff's residence, into which seedhouse he forced the seed from the ginnery by air suction, which method caused a great quantity of dust to be forced through the cracks of the seedhouse and to settle in the plaintiff's home and on the floors and the furniture therein, the effect of which was to depreciate the value of the home by $200. From this evidence the jury would be authorized to find that the defendant was maintaining an actionable nuisance. Ponder v. Quitman Ginnery, 122 Ga. 29, 49 S.E....