Bringing injunctive action in county of defendant's residence constitutionally required.

- In an injunctive action solely against owner of property on which an alleged public nuisance is being operated, the action must be brought in county of residence of defendant, as required by Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. III. This is true, even though this section states that action is to be filed in county where nuisance exists, since the constitutional mandate must control. Chancey v. Hancock, 225 Ga. 715, 171 S.E.2d 302 (1969).

Nuisance may be abated by writ of injunction issued out of superior court upon a complaint filed by Attorney General or district attorney of superior court, or by any citizen of the county in which the nuisance exists. Ogletree v. Atkinson, 195 Ga. 32, 22 S.E.2d 783 (1942).

This section is not of force within the limits of a wet county. Wood v. City of Atlanta, 93 Ga. App. 578, 92 S.E.2d 263 (1956).

Judgment denying relief on owner's petition to reopen premises closed as nuisance undisturbed.

- A judgment denying relief on petition brought by owner of premises padlocked as a nuisance under this section on which there was a hearing, in which the owner asserted the owner's lack of knowledge of illegal purpose for which the tenant, defendant in original proceeding, used premises, and praying that the owner be permitted to reopen the premises will not be disturbed where it appears that the evidence at the hearing was sufficient to show guilty knowledge on part of the owner. Baskin v. Meadors, 196 Ga. 802, 27 S.E.2d 696 (1943).

ALR.

- Charge of maintaining a liquor nuisance predicated on permitting guests to bring and consume their own liquor, 49 A.L.R. 1451.

Admissibility, in prosecution for maintaining liquor nuisance, of evidence of general reputation of premises, 68 A.L.R.2d 1300.