Hanes v. . Carolina Cadillac Co.

97 S.E. 162, 176 N.C. 350, 1918 N.C. LEXIS 249
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 6, 1918
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 97 S.E. 162 (Hanes v. . Carolina Cadillac Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hanes v. . Carolina Cadillac Co., 97 S.E. 162, 176 N.C. 350, 1918 N.C. LEXIS 249 (N.C. 1918).

Opinion

*351 BeowN, J".

The plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendant until the final hearing of this cause from establishing a public supply station for automobiles on a lot near plaintiff’s residence property. The judge dissolved the temporary restraining order and refused an injunction to the hearing, but required defendant not to store over 1,500 gallons of gasoline in its 8,000-gallon tank at one time. "Whereupon defendant complied with the order and installed two 1,000-gallon tanks, instead of the 8,000-gallon tank. 'Defendant purposes to obey the order by storing 1,500 gallons in the two 1,000-gallon tanks.

Automobiles are of such general use that they have become a part of the daily life of our people in business as well as for pleasure. Public garages and supply stations are essential and cannot well be dispensed with. The establishment of such public conveniences even in residential sections of cities and towns have been held not to be a nuisance per se. Sheman v. Lexington, 128 N. Y., 681. It has been further held that the storage of gasoline in suitable tanks set well down in the earth does not constitute a nuisance per se. Harper v. Standard Oil Co., 78 Mo. App., 338; Cleveland v. Gaslight Co., 20 N. J. Eq., 201.

It is a general rule that where the thing complained of is not a nuisance per se, but may or may not become so, according to circumstances, and the injury apprehended is eventual or contingent, equity will not interfere. Berger v. Smith, 160 N. C., 208; Chambers v. Cramer, 54 L. R. A., 542.

The defendant’s supply station'has not been declared to be a nuisance by the verdict of a jury upon final hearing, and in the meantime we are of opinion that the rights of plaintiff have been duly safeguarded by the order made.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Wilcher v. Sharpe
72 S.E.2d 662 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
Wilson v. Evans Hotel Co.
4 S.E.2d 155 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Continental Oil Co. v. City of Twin Falls
286 P. 353 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1930)
Gillette v. Tyson
122 So. 830 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
Standard Oil Co. v. Kahn
141 S.E. 643 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1928)
Zeppenfeld v. Franklin Motor Service Co.
134 N.E. 487 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1922)
McLean v. . Breece
18 S.E. 694 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 S.E. 162, 176 N.C. 350, 1918 N.C. LEXIS 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanes-v-carolina-cadillac-co-nc-1918.