Rinzler v. Hunter

Supreme Court of Georgia

Rinzler v. Hunter

74 S.E.2d 665, 209 Ga. 553, 1953 Ga. LEXIS 325

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 9, 1953

DocketNo. 18049

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 74 S.E.2d 665 (Rinzler v. Hunter) 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

Rinzler v. Hunter, 74 S.E.2d 665, 209 Ga. 553, 1953 Ga. LEXIS 325 (Ga. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Almand, Justice.

The exception here is to an order granting an interlocutory injunction, on the petition of Mrs. Betty W. Hunter, as the owner of an improved lot of real estate, against Joseph Rinzler and another, the owners of an adjoining and higher lot, alleging that the defendants were maintaining a continuing nuisance on their lot by increasing the flow of surface waters on their lot by artificial means, to the injury of her property. The pleadings are essentially the same as in the case of Rinzler v. Folsom, ante, and the evidence adduced at the hearing is the same as in the Folsom case. The rulings there [554]*554made are controlling here. ' Held: It was not error to grant an interlocutory injunction.

No. 18049. Submitted January 15, 1953 Decided February 9, 1953— Rehearing denied February 25,- 1953. B. Hugh Burgess and James M. Roberts, for plaintiffs in error. Camp & Camp., Ben J. Camp, John Wesley Weekes, and Weekes & Candler, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, P. J. and Wyatt, J., not participating; and Head, J., disqualified.

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

Almand, Justice.

The exception here is to an order granting an interlocutory injunction, on the petition of Mrs. Betty W. Hunter, as the owner of an improved lot of real estate, against Joseph Rinzler and another, the owners of an adjoining and higher lot, alleging that the defendants were maintaining a continuing nuisance on their lot by increasing the flow of surface waters on their lot by artificial means, to the injury of her property. The pleadings are essentially the same as in the case of Rinzler v. Folsom, ante, and the evidence adduced at the hearing is the same as in the Folsom case. The rulings there [554]*554made are controlling here. ' Held: It was not error to grant an interlocutory injunction.

No. 18049. Submitted January 15, 1953 Decided February 9, 1953— Rehearing denied February 25,- 1953. B. Hugh Burgess and James M. Roberts, for plaintiffs in error. Camp & Camp., Ben J. Camp, John Wesley Weekes, and Weekes & Candler, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, P. J. and Wyatt, J., not participating; and Head, J., disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 S.E.2d 665, 209 Ga. 553, 1953 Ga. LEXIS 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rinzler-v-hunter-ga-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack