KINGSLEY MILL CORPORATION v. Edmonds
This text of 67 S.E.2d 111 (KINGSLEY MILL CORPORATION v. Edmonds) 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.
Opinion
1. The trial court is vested with a wide discretion in the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions, which will not be controlled by this court unless abused. Code, § 55-108; Jones v. Camp, 208 Ga. 164 (1) (65 S. E. 2d, 596).
2. A lower riparian owner is entitled to have water flow upon his land in its natural slate free from adulteration. Code, §§ 85-1301, 105-1407; Satterfield v. Rowan, 83 Ga. 187 (2) (9 S. E. 677); City of Elberton v. Hobbs, 121 Ga. 749 (3) (49 S. E. 779); Hodges v. Pine Product Co., 135 Ga. 134 (68 S. E. 1107); Robertson v. Arnold, 182 Ga. 664 (186 S. E. 806, 106 A. L. R. 681); Cairo Pickle Co. v. Muggridge, 206 Ga. 80 (55 S. E. 2d, 562).
3. Where no question of prescriptive rights was involved in this suit by a dairy farmer, seeking to enjoin a manufacturing company from polluting a stream, and where there was evidence, though conflicting, that the stream was being polluted, and that the petitioner had not acquiesced or consented for the water from the defendants’ sewerage-disposal plant to be discharged upon his land, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting an interlocutory injunction.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
67 S.E.2d 111, 208 Ga. 374, 1951 Ga. LEXIS 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kingsley-mill-corporation-v-edmonds-ga-1951.