LAW.coLAW.co

William Harrison, plaintiff in error, vs. William H. Brooks, defendant

Supreme Court of Georgia1856-06No. No. 95
20 Ga. 537

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

We think the true rule in such cases is this, namely: that injunctions will only be granted to restrain nuisances, in cases of absolute necessity, in which the evil sought to be-prevented is not only probable, but certain and inevitable. Moreover, it will be less disposed to interfere, where the-apprehended mischief is to follow from such establishments- and erections as have a tendency to promote the public convenienee. (2 Ir. Eq. Rep. 199; Pick. Rep. 376; Daniel’s Ch. Pr. note p. 1850.) Testing this case by this rule, we think there can be no-doubt but that if the carriage house and stables were extended as was contemplated, and the establishment properly kept, that instead of being certain that the stables would be a nuisance, the probability is that it would not be.