Cunningham v. Rice
28 Ga. 30
Opinion
[32]*32 By the Court.
delivering the opinion.
In Mygatt et al. vs. Goetchius, (20 Geo. Rep. 350,) this court held that when taking the bill and answer, the structure complained of will not prima facie, constitute a nuisance — the injunction will not be continued; but that the party will proceed at his peril — the whole subject being under the control of the jury at the hearing.
We re-affirm the doctrines of that case, and agree that it fully covers and controls this. Indeed, this is a much weaker case than that.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cunningham v. Rice, 28 Ga. 30 (Ga. 1859).
28 Ga. 30 (Cunningham v. Rice) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Blackman Health Resort v. City of Atlanta
107 S.E. 525 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1921)
City of Quitman v. Underwood
96 S.E. 178 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1918)