Pig'n Whistle Sandwich Shops Inc. v. Keith

146 S.E. 455, 167 Ga. 735, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 31
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 23, 1929
DocketNo. 6827
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 146 S.E. 455 (Pig'n Whistle Sandwich Shops Inc. v. Keith) 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
Pig'n Whistle Sandwich Shops Inc. v. Keith, 146 S.E. 455, 167 Ga. 735, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 31 (Ga. 1929).

Opinion

Hines, J.

1. Tlie business of operating a sandwich or barbecue stand is

not a nuisance per se; but it may become one per aceidens. Standard Oil Co. v. Kahn, 165 Ga. 575 (141 S. E. 643).

2. In the absence of statute or ordinance prohibiting it, the business of conducting a sandwich or barbecue stand can be operated at all hours of the night, if the same is carried on in a proper manner.

3. Where the business alleged to be a nuisance is lawful and can be carried on without the injuries complained of, the defendant should not ,be restrained from carrying it on at all, but should be restrained from carrying it on so as to be injurious and offensive, leaving him the right to carry it on in a proper manner. 46 C. J. 792, § 416 (15); Georgia R. Co. v. Maddox, 116 Ga. 64 (42 S. E. 315).

4. The court erred in granting what appears to be a permanent injunction. On the hearing of an application for temporary injunction, the judge should not grant a permanent one, but only one of an ad interim character, to remain of force until the final trial. Civil Code (1910), § 5500; Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Overby, 136 Ga. 69 (70 S. E. 664); Brown v. Smith, 150 Ga. 111 (102 S. E. 813); Burns v. Hale, 162 Ga. 336 (133 S. E. 857).

5. The court erred in enjoining the defendant from carrying on his business at all during the hours named in his order granting the injunction, and in granting a permanent injunction at an interlocutory hearing. Eor these reasons the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further action in accordance with the above rulings.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur. Paul L. Lindsay, for plaintiff in error Scott & HornbucMe and Pat G. Herrington, contra.

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

Related

Abney v. Harris
65 S.E.2d 905 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1951)
Roberts v. Rich
37 S.E.2d 401 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1946)
Pullen v. Meadors
27 S.E.2d 655 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
Gordy v. Armstrong
10 S.E.2d 168 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Grubbs v. Wooten
5 S.E.2d 874 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Wilson v. Evans Hotel Co.
4 S.E.2d 155 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Warren Company v. Dickson
195 S.E. 568 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)
Hunnicutt v. Eaton
191 S.E. 919 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
McGinty v. Pickering
179 S.E. 358 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1935)
Thrasher v. City of Atlanta
173 S.E. 817 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1934)
Leary v. First National Bank
170 S.E. 84 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Duncan v. City of Dalton
150 S.E. 837 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
146 S.E. 455, 167 Ga. 735, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pign-whistle-sandwich-shops-inc-v-keith-ga-1929.