TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

City of Elberton v. Hobbs

City of Elberton v. Hobbs, 49 S.E. 780 (Ga. 1905)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 28, 1905
Judges
Fish
Citations
49 S.E. 780121 Ga. 7501905 Ga. LEXIS 61
Cited by 8 2 descriptions by later courts
Summary
Injunction. Before Judge Holden. Elbert superior court. November 14, 1904. The City of Elberton served upon the plaintiff a notice of its •desire to condemn the right to use water from Beaver Dam creek for its waterworks and sewerage system, naming an assessor and requesting the naming of one by the plaintiff, these two to name, a third, and the three to meet on the premises and assess the damage to be done to the plaintiff’s property. She thereupon petitioned for an injunction to stop the proposed condemnation proceeding, alleging, among other things, that she needs all the water of the creek flowing over her property, for the purpose-of properly operating and developing it; that she intends soon to reconstruct the dam (which has been washed away by high water) so as to operate her mill and gin machinery, and it is essential to her rights that no part of the water be permanently diverted from the stream; that even a partial diversion of the water would ruin the value of the property as a water power, and. cause to. her damage that could not be estimated and for which she could not be adequately compensated; that the city has no legal power to condemn the water or the right to divert it from the creek; and that, even if it had such authority, it has made no effort to procure from her any property or right, has refused to negotiate with her or to offer her any price for the same or to request her to name a price, etc. The city answered, that the plaintiff would not be damaged by anything it contemplated doing in the erection and operation of its waterworks and in diverting water from the creek; and that, knowing that she claimed a large amount of damages as liable to accrue to her therefrom, and knowing that there was no chance to arrive at a just and fair adjustment of the difference between her and the city by any offer to pay or to settle, it proceeded to condemn the right to use the water.' On the bearing it introduced the affidavit of a civil engineer of experience, to the effect that the amount of water that would be diverted by the city would not affect the water power at the plaintiff’s mill. The injunction was granted, and the city excepted.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Fish

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Fish, P. J.

1. Failure to secure the property by contract, by reason of the inability of the parties to agree .upon the compensation to be paid therefor, is an essential prerequisite to the condemnation of private property for public uses. Civil Code, §§ 4658, 4659.

2. The grant of an interlocutory injunction was not erroneous.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Joseph iV. Worley, for plaintiff in error,

cited Civil Code, § 4686; Acts 1897, p. 34; Acts 1896, p. 151; Ga. R. 115/560; 98/103; 70/614; 77/338.

Dean & Hobbs, contra.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

  • (“Failure to secure the property by contract, by reason of the inability of the parties to agree upon the compensation to be paid therefor, is an essential prerequisite to the condemnation of private property for public uses.”)
    City of Marietta v. Summerour, 807 S.E.2d 324 (Ga. 2017)

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →
1907: 11908: 11939: 11946: 11958: 11980: 12015: 12017: 119072026peak 1907 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Woodside v. City of Atlanta103 S.E.2d 108 (Ga. 1958)
  2. City of Marietta v. Summerour807 S.E.2d 324 (Ga. 2017)
  3. Barber v. Housing Authority of Rome5 S.E.2d 425 (Ga. 1939)
  4. Miller v. State Highway Department37 S.E.2d 365 (Ga. 1946)
  5. Pyle v. Gilbert265 S.E.2d 584 (Ga. 1980)
  6. WHITE v. THE RINGGOLD TELEPHONE COMPANY779 S.E.2d 378 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015)

Most recent

  1. City of Marietta v. Summerour807 S.E.2d 324 (Ga. 2017)
  2. WHITE v. THE RINGGOLD TELEPHONE COMPANY779 S.E.2d 378 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015)
  3. Pyle v. Gilbert265 S.E.2d 584 (Ga. 1980)
  4. Woodside v. City of Atlanta103 S.E.2d 108 (Ga. 1958)
  5. Miller v. State Highway Department37 S.E.2d 365 (Ga. 1946)
  6. Barber v. Housing Authority of Rome5 S.E.2d 425 (Ga. 1939)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list