City of Dublin v. Kea

Court of Appeals of Georgia

City of Dublin v. Kea

93 S.E. 229, 20 Ga. App. 718, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1042

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 3, 1917

Docket8764

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 93 S.E. 229 (City of Dublin v. Kea) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Dublin v. Kea, 93 S.E. 229, 20 Ga. App. 718, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1042 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Geobge, J.

1. “Although municipal authorities may have plenary power in the matter of collection, removal, and disposition of garbage, yet they can not lawfully create, in connection therewith, a nuisance dangerous to health or life; and where such a nuisance is created and its effect is specially injurious to an individual by reason of its proximity to his home, he has a cause of action for damages. Bell v. Mayor etc. of Savannah, 139 Ga. 298 (77 S. E. 165).” Kea v. Gity of Dublin (this case), 145 Ga. 511 (89 S. E. 484).

2. The verdict of $850 in favor of the plaintiff is not without evidence to support it, and is not legally excessive. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, O. J., and Luke, J., eoneur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Geobge, J.

1. “Although municipal authorities may have plenary power in the matter of collection, removal, and disposition of garbage, yet they can not lawfully create, in connection therewith, a nuisance dangerous to health or life; and where such a nuisance is created and its effect is specially injurious to an individual by reason of its proximity to his home, he has a cause of action for damages. Bell v. Mayor etc. of Savannah, 139 Ga. 298 (77 S. E. 165).” Kea v. Gity of Dublin (this case), 145 Ga. 511 (89 S. E. 484).

2. The verdict of $850 in favor of the plaintiff is not without evidence to support it, and is not legally excessive. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, O. J., and Luke, J., eoneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.E. 229, 20 Ga. App. 718, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-dublin-v-kea-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack