POOLE v. ARNOLD et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia1939-03-08No. No. 12596

187 Ga. 734

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the homeowners stated a valid cause of action for injunctive relief based on the noise disturbance to their homes, and that the trial court properly overruled the demurrer and was authorized to grant the interlocutory injunction on this ground.

Homeowners sought an injunction to stop defendants from operating a sandwich stand and bowling alley in their residential neighborhood, citing disturbances from loud noises that disrupted their peaceful enjoyment of their homes. The defendants challenged the complaint through a general demurrer, arguing both that no valid cause of action existed and that the underlying state statute requiring permits was unconstitutional.

The court ruled that the complaint adequately stated grounds for an injunction based on the noise nuisance alone, without needing to address the permit requirement. The defendants' constitutional challenge failed because they did not identify any specific constitutional provision the statute violated, making their objection too vague to warrant consideration. Since the trial court had authority to grant the injunction on the nuisance theory, the judgment would stand regardless of whether the permit-based reasoning was legally sound.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a general demurrer should be overruled when the petition states a cause of action for some relief sought
Whether noise from a commercial establishment in a residential area constitutes grounds for injunction
Whether a constitutional challenge to a statute must identify specific constitutional violations

Procedural posture

The defendants filed a general demurrer to the homeowners' petition for injunction, which the trial court overruled and an interlocutory injunction was granted; the defendants appealed.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

The purpose of the suit was to enjoin the operation of a sandwich-stand and outdoor bowling-alley established by the defendant in the residential section in which the homes of the plaintiffs were situated. The alleged grounds of complaint included (1) loud and violent noises which interfered with the peace and quiet of the plaintiffs in their homes, and (2) operation of such establishment for money or profit without a permit from the county commissioners, in violation of the act of the General Assembly approved March 30, 1937 (Ga. L. 1937, p. 625). Held:

1. A general demurrer to a petition goes to the whole pleading to which it is addressed, and should be overruled if the petition states a cause of action for any part of the relief sought. Blaylock v. Hackel, 164 Ga. 257 (5) (138 S. E. 333).

(a) As against the general ground of the demurrer, and regardless of any question as- to permit, the petition stated a cause of action for injunction to restrain a continuation of the alleged loud and violent noises by which the plaintiffs were disturbed in the peace and quiet of their homes at night. Under the record, no decision is required as to whether a cause of action for greater relief was stated. See Code, §§ 72-101, 72-103; Hunnicutt v. Eaton, 184 Ga. 485 (191 S. E. 919); Warren Co. v. Dickson, 185 Ga. 481 (195 S. E. 568); O’Quinn v. Homerville, 42 Ga. App. 628 (157 S. E. 109); Hamilton Corporation v. Julian, 130 Md. 597 (101 Atl. 558, 7 A. L. R. 746); Krocket v. Westmoreland Planing-Mill Co., 274 Pa. 143 (117 Atl. 669, 23 A. L. R. 1404); Phelps v. Winch, 309 Ill. 158 (140 N. E. 847, 28 A. L. R. 1169); Edmunds v. Duff, 280 Pa. 355 (124 Atl. 489, 33 A. L. R. 719); Higgins v. Decorah Produce Co., 214 Iowa, 276 (242 N. W. 109, 81 A. L. R. 1199).

(b) The second or special ground of demurrer, which attempted to draw into question the constitutionality of the act of March 30, 1937, did not state or show wherein this statute violates any provision of the constitution, and it was therefore too indefinite to raise any question as to the constitutionality of such statute. Pace v. Goodson, 127 Ga. 211 (56 S. E. 363); Crapp v. State, 148 Ga. 150 (95 S. E. 993); Curtis v. Helen, 171 Ga. 156 (155 S. E. 202); Williams v. McIntosh County, 179 Ga. 735, 741 (177 S. E. 248); Johns v. State, 180 Ga. 187 (3) (178 S. E. 707); Wright v. Cannon, 185 Ga. 363 (195 S. E. 168).

2. Eegardless of any issue as to the obtaining of such permit, under the pleadings and the evidence the judge was authorized to grant the interlocutory injunction for the purpose of preventing disturbance of the plaintiffs in their homes by the noises complained of. The judgment being authorized upon this ground, and not disclosing upon its face that it was based upon a different ground, it will not be disturbed because of recitals in the bill of exceptions that it was based solely upon the ground that the defendant had not obtained a permit in accordance with the statute, even though an injunction based exclusively on the latter ground might have been unauthorized, either for the reason that in such case only the solicitor-general could have maintained the action (Code, § 72-202), or for other reason. See Hendricks v. Jackson, 139 Ga. 604 (2) (77 S. E. 816); Frank v. State, 141 Ga. 243 (19) (80 S. E. 1016); Dunaway v. Gore, 164 Ga. 219 (5) (138 S. E. 213). The order granting an interlocutory injunction was not erroneous for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.