Opinion
No. 42425.
November 5, 1962.
1. Intoxicating liquors — injunction for abatement of liquor nuisance not void because premises described therein consisted of fifty acres of land.
A temporary injunction for abatement of a liquor nuisance was not void because the premises therein described consisted of approximately 50 acres of land through which a highway ran, on ground that premises to be enjoined must refer to some specific building or limited area, where injunction was limited to premises described in the injunction and hence on violation thereof, the defendant was properly prosecuted for contempt. Sec. 2646, Code 1942.
Headnote as approved by Gillespie, J.
APPEAL from the Chancery Court of Simpson County; NEVILLE PATTERSON, Chancellor.
Petition by State ex rel. Weathersby, district attorney, for abatement of an alleged liquor nuisance by an injunction. From an adverse decree, the defendant, Vardaman Smith, appealed. Affirmed.
Bidwell Adam, Biloxi; Forrest B. Jackson, Jackson, for appellant.
I. The writ of injunction is void under the provisions of Section 2646, Mississippi Code of 1942 in that it does not specifically describe the place or premises with that particularity as should be required where such place or premises are to be enjoined as a common or public nuisance. Allen v. Genry, 39 Ala. App. 281, 97 So.2d 828; Ballew v. Case, Admrx., 232 Miss. 183, 98 So.2d 451; Boynton v. State (Fla.), 64 So.2d 536; Castleman v. State, 94 Miss. 609, 47 So. 647; Equitable Life Assurance Society of U.S. v. Gex Estate, 184 Miss. 577, 186 So. 659; Evers v. State, 241 Miss. 560, 131 So.2d 653; Everett v. State, ex rel. Johnson, District Attorney, 232 Miss. 816, 100 So.2d 583; Horne v. State, 232 Miss. 252, 98 So.2d 653; Jenkins v. State, 242 Miss. 627, 136 So.2d 205; Miller v. State, 129 Miss. 774, 93 So. 2; Morton v. State, 136 Miss. 284, 101 So. 379; Outlaw v. State, 208 Miss. 13, 43 So.2d 661; Peeples v. State, 216 Miss. 790, 63 So.2d 236; Rignall v. State, 134 Miss. 169, 98 So. 444; Rochelle v. State, 222 Miss. 83, 75 So.2d 268; Spiers v. State, 231 Miss. 307, 94 So.2d 803; Stephens v. State, 183 Miss. 829, 184 So. 327; Taylor v. State, 134 Miss. 110, 98 So. 459; Walton v. City of Tupelo, 241 Miss. 894, 133 So.2d 531; Warren v. State, 231 Miss. 343, 95 So.2d 237; Sec. 2646, Code 1942.
G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
I. Cited and discussed the following authorities: Collins v. State, 173 Miss. 179, 159 So. 865; Poole v. State, 231 Miss. 1, 94 So.2d 239; Pruitt v. State, 163 Miss. 47, 139 So. 861; Thornhill v. State, ex rel Broom, District Attorney, 234 Miss. 48, 105 So.2d 161; Sec. 2646, Code 1942.
The Sheriff and District Attorney of Simpson County filed a petition under Sec. 2646, Miss. Code 1942, and charged that the defendant below and appellant here, Vardaman Smith, and his wife managed certain real property in Simpson County, Mississippi, on which were located certain buildings and that intoxicating liquors were kept and stored on said premises and sold therefrom in violation of the laws, and the premises were a public nuisance. Abatement of said alleged nuisance was sought by means of an injunction. A temporary injunction was issued and a short time thereafter Vardaman Smith made, or permitted to be made, several sales of liquor on the premises described in the injunction. Appellant was then cited for contempt and on the contempt hearing did not deny making the sales of liquor on the premises. He was found guilty of contempt and sentenced to serve ninety days in jail, from which decree he appeals.
(Hn 1) The sole question is whether the temporary injunction was void because the premises therein described consisted of approximately fifty acres of land through which the highway ran. Appellant argues that the place or premises which may be enjoined must refer to some specific building, room, or limited area, and that the statute does not authorize an injunction prohibiting the violation of the liquor laws in an area as large as fifty acres. In other words, the injunction should have been limited to a certain building, or buildings, or limited area, on the tract of land. He cites in support of this contention the cases of Rochelle v. State, 222 Miss. 83, 75 So.2d 268, and Warren v. State, 231 Miss. 343, 95 So.2d 237. The cited cases hold that the statute does not authorize an injunction enjoining a defendant from violating the intoxicating liquor laws generally, but the injunction must be limited to a particular place described in the writ. Those cases do not aid appellant because the injunction in the present case was limited to the premises described in the injunction. The fact that the premises constituted a fifty-acre tract does not render the injunction void. Thornhill v. State, 234 Miss. 48, 105 So.2d 161.
We find no error. The decree of the chancellor is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Lee, P.J., and Kyle, Ethridge and McElroy, JJ., concur.