Phinizy v. Gardner

125 S.E. 195, 159 Ga. 136, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 396
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedOctober 17, 1924
DocketNo. 4158
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 125 S.E. 195 (Phinizy v. Gardner) 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
Phinizy v. Gardner, 125 S.E. 195, 159 Ga. 136, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 396 (Ga. 1924).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

1. One wlio is the owner of the easement of burial in a cemetery is entitled to recover damages from any one who wrongfully interferes with such right. Jacobus v. Congregation of the Children of Israel, 107 Ga. 518 (33 S. E. 853, 73 Am. St. R. 141); Stewart v. Garrett, 119 Ga. 386 (46 S. E. 427, 64 L. R. A. 99, 100 Am. St. R. 179). If such trespass is a continuing one, a court of equity will enjoin it. Stovall v. Caverly, 139 Ga. 243 (77 S. E. 29). If we concede that the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law for the removal of the fences erected by the defendant across the private way to the cemetery, such remedy would not give adequate relief to the .plaintiff for the continued plowing and cultivation of the roadway. Such relief could only be obtained in equity.

2.'Where the main purpose of the injunction is not to require affirmative action, but to restrain the defendant from repeating a trespass, the in[137]*137junction is not a mandatory one, although compliance' with it may require some affirmative action on the part of the party enjoined, such as the removal of a fence across the roadway to a cemetery. Spencer v. Tumlin, 155 Ga. 341 (116 S. E. 600).

No. 4158. October 17, 1924.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Hill, J., dissenting. Hamilton Phinizy, for plaintiff in error. William II. Fleming, contra.

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

Related

Davis v. Overall
686 S.E.2d 839 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2009)
Habersham Memorial Park, Inc. v. Moore
297 S.E.2d 315 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Hancock v. Moriarity
110 S.E.2d 403 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1959)
West View Corporation v. Alexander
65 S.E.2d 38 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1951)
Key v. Stringer
52 S.E.2d 305 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1949)
Hale v. Hale
33 S.E.2d 441 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1945)
Westbrook v. Comer
29 S.E.2d 574 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1944)
Hall v. Browning
24 S.E.2d 392 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
Manry v. First National Bank
23 S.E.2d 662 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Hornsby v. Smith
13 S.E.2d 20 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
Maddox v. First National Bank
11 S.E.2d 662 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Campbell v. Deal
195 S.E. 432 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)
Clark v. Anderson
183 S.E. 852 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Sims v. Boyd
170 S.E. 375 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Rosser v. Styron
155 S.E. 23 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1930)
Peebles v. Perkins
140 S.E. 360 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 S.E. 195, 159 Ga. 136, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phinizy-v-gardner-ga-1924.