Hadden v. Pierce

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hadden v. Pierce

90 S.E.2d 405, 212 Ga. 45, 1955 Ga. LEXIS 539

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 14, 1955

Docket19123

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 90 S.E.2d 405 (Hadden v. Pierce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hadden v. Pierce, 90 S.E.2d 405, 212 Ga. 45, 1955 Ga. LEXIS 539 (Ga. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

Any citizen has such interest in having public officers perform their duties as will authorize him to maintain mandamus proceedings for that purpose. Code § 64-101. In such action, although the official duty required is that of issuing a building permit, it is not a private right of the petitioner requiring a showing of irreparable injury as required by Code § 64-105. A filling station is not a nuisance per se; and it appearing from all the evidence in this record that the only evidence offered in opposition to the application for the permit was of property owners nearby upon grounds of danger, noise and the depressing of the value of their property, none of which amount to a valid reason for declining the permit, it was therefore an abuse of discretion to refuse the mandamus. City of Pearson v. Glidden Co., 205 Ga. 738 (55 S. E. 2d 125); City of Hawkinsville v. Williams, 185 Ga. 396 (195 S. E. 162); Wofford Oil Co. v. City of Calhoun, 183 Ga. 511 (189 S. E. 5); Brown v. City of Thomasville, 156 Ga. 260 (118 S. E. 854).

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

Any citizen has such interest in having public officers perform their duties as will authorize him to maintain mandamus proceedings for that purpose. Code § 64-101. In such action, although the official duty required is that of issuing a building permit, it is not a private right of the petitioner requiring a showing of irreparable injury as required by Code § 64-105. A filling station is not a nuisance per se; and it appearing from all the evidence in this record that the only evidence offered in opposition to the application for the permit was of property owners nearby upon grounds of danger, noise and the depressing of the value of their property, none of which amount to a valid reason for declining the permit, it was therefore an abuse of discretion to refuse the mandamus. City of Pearson v. Glidden Co., 205 Ga. 738 (55 S. E. 2d 125); City of Hawkinsville v. Williams, 185 Ga. 396 (195 S. E. 162); Wofford Oil Co. v. City of Calhoun, 183 Ga. 511 (189 S. E. 5); Brown v. City of Thomasville, 156 Ga. 260 (118 S. E. 854).

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 S.E.2d 405, 212 Ga. 45, 1955 Ga. LEXIS 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hadden-v-pierce-ga-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack