Broomhead v. Grant
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Simmons, Justice.
There was no error in the refusal of the injunction in this case, according to the facts disclosed in this record. The remedy for the abatement of a nuisance, either public or private, is provided in the code, §§4094-98. The fact that courts of equity and of law have been com- *453 billed in tbe superior court, does not give tne latter court any more power or jurisdiction than tbe two courts bad before tbe uniform procedure act of 1887. If tbe court of equity would not bave bad jurisdiction of tbis case, under tbe facts as disclosed by tbis record, before tbe passage of tbis act, that act does not give itjurisdiction now. Tbis court in several eases, notably in Ruff v. Phillips, 50 Ga. 130 , bas decided that tbe remedy for tbe abatment of a nuisance is provided in tbe section above mentioned. Parties wbo wisb to abate a nuisance, either public or private, must resort to tbe remedy thus provided, unless special facts are alleged, showing that that remedy is not sufficient or is inadequate. No such facts are alleged in tbis petition. Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 18 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.