CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA. CITY OF ATLANTA v. WARNOOK. [91 GEORGIA, 210.] MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-INJUNCTION AGAINST NUISANCE MAINTAINED BY.-Although a municipal corporation is by statute invested with plenary powers over its streets, sewers, drainage, and sanitation, it may be restrained by injunction from maintaining a nuisance dangerous to life and health, consisting of manholes emitting large quantities of poisonous gases from a sewer in a public street adjoining private residences. And this, although the nuisance does not result from any defect inherent in the sewer system, but is due to defective execution in failing to adapt the system properly to the steep grade of the street in which the man holes are located. INJUNCTION AGAINST NUISANCE WHEN SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE. — An order granting an injunction restraining a city from maintaining nuisance, and "from continuing said manholes in such condition as to allow the escape of noxious gases," is sufficiently definite and specific, provided the pleadings and evidence show with reasonable certainty what manholes are designated in the order. PETITION for an injunction against the city of Atlanta to restrain it from maintaining two open manholes with perforated tops opening into a large sewer in a public street within a few feet of petitioner's property, and allowing the escape of large quantities of foul, offensive, and dangerous sewer gas from the sewer, thus creating a nuisance and a constant menace to the health, and great annoyance to the comfort of the petitioner and other occupants of her premises. The petition prayed for an injunction restraining the city of Atlanta from keeping the mouths of said manholes open, and from continuing such nuisance in front of petitioner's premises. The city sought to defend on the ground that its AM. ST. REP., VOL XLIV. -2 (17) system of sewerage was constructed under the plan and direction of an eminent civil engineer, and that "the plan of ventilating main sewers through perforated covers to manholes at street crossings, and at substantially regular distances between such crossings, is an integral and necessary part of the sewer system so advised and adopted, and since conformed to in the construction and operation of sewers." The trial court ordered an injunction to issue, and the defendant appealed. J. B. Goodwin and J. A. Anderson, for the plaintiff in error. Hall & Hammond, for the defendant in error. 214 BLECKLEY, C. J. 1. There was evidence indicating that the system of sewerage adopted by the city was a good and safe one, and that the nuisance complained of, or its dangerous character, did not result from any defect inherent in the system itself, but was due to defective execution in failing to adapt the system properly to the steep grade of the street in which this particular un wholesome sewer was constructed and is maintained. There was ample evidence that poisonous gases in large quantities were emitted through the manholes in this sewer, which were dangerous to health and life, and that the plaintiff, whose residence was on adjacent premises, was subjected to special injury and annoyance thereby. If such a nuisance owed its origin not to the general system of which this sewer was a part, but to a defective execution of the same at this particular place, there can be 215 no doubt of the power to restrain the city from continuing the nuisance, notwithstanding the municipal government is by statute invested with plenary powers over streets, sewers, drainage and sanitation. Whether a nuisance attributable to a mistaken exercise of the legislative power of the city in adopting an unsafe or unwholesome system of sewerage might be the subject matter of injunction is a question on which no decisive opinion need be expressed-the strong probability being that the nuisance now under consideration had a different origin. 2. In granting the temporary injunction restraining the city "from continuing said manholes in such condition as to allow the escape of noxious gases," the presiding judge did not abuse his discretion; and the terms of the order were sufficiently definite and specific, construing them in the light of |