Ott v. Raburn

Head, Justice. 1. “Mere apprehension of irreparable injury from an alleged nuisance consisting of a house in course of construction for a lawful business use is not sufficient to authorize an injunction. If it be a nuisance, the consequences must be to a reasonable degree certain.” Richmond Cotton Oil Co. v. Castellaw, 134 Ga. 472 (67 S. E. 1126); Thomoson v. Sammon, 174 Ga. 751, 757 (164 S. E. 45); Wingate v. Doerun, 177 Ga. 374 (170 S. E. 226). 2. Where, as here, the bill of exceptions recites that counsel for the plaintiffs in error stated in open court that the plaintiffs did not contend that the construction of the new church building would constitute a nuisance per se, and the evidence (if any) that the new church building would become a nuisance per accidens was based on a mere apprehension of injury, it was not error for the trial court to deny the grant of an interlocutory injunction. Judgment affirmed. Jenkins, Chief Justice, Duckworth, Presiding Justice, Atkinson, Wyatt, and Candler, Justices, and Judge A. M. Anderson concur. [199] No. 16275. July 15, 1948. Rehearing denied July 28, 1948.