KINGSLEY MILL CORPORATION v. Edmonds
KINGSLEY MILL CORPORATION v. Edmonds
Opinion
1. The trial court is vested with a wide discretion in the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions, which will not be controlled by this court unless abused. Code, § 55-108; Jones v. Camp, 208 Ga. 164 (1) (65 S. E. 2d, 596).
2. A lower riparian owner is entitled to have water flow upon his land in its natural slate free from adulteration. Code, §§ 85-1301, 105-1407; Satterfield v. Rowan, 83 Ga. 187 (2) (9 S. E. 677); City of Elberton v. Hobbs, 121 Ga. 749 (3) (49 S. E. 779); Hodges v. Pine Product Co., 135 Ga. 134 (68 S. E. 1107); Robertson v. Arnold, 182 Ga. 664 (186 S. E. 806, 106 A. L. R. 681); Cairo Pickle Co. v. Muggridge, 206 Ga. 80 (55 S. E. 2d, 562).
3. Where no question of prescriptive rights was involved in this suit by a dairy farmer, seeking to enjoin a manufacturing company from polluting a stream, and where there was evidence, though conflicting, that the stream was being polluted, and that the petitioner had not acquiesced or consented for the water from the defendants’ sewerage-disposal plant to be discharged upon his land, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting an interlocutory injunction.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Kingsley Mill Corporation Et Al. v. Edmonds
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published