## Facts

- Twenty-six Blount County citizens, suing in the name of the State, sought to enjoin Donald C. Feezell (East Tennessee Cremation Company) from establishing and operating a crematory on Clover Hill Road in a rural or rural-residential area.
- The proposed facility was described as a small converted garage with a prominent smokestack.
- Plaintiffs alleged that operating a crematory in the area would horrify the community and cause turmoil, inconvenience, annoyance, anguish, and related mental and physical distress, impairing their quiet enjoyment of their homes and property.
- Plaintiffs further alleged the crematory would endanger the area and violate local standards of decency.
- The complaint was filed before the crematory began operating and did not allege existing smoke, odor, emissions, or other tangible interference; residences in the area were sparsely situated.
- The chancellor dismissed the suit as premature, finding no present basis for injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether equity may enjoin a proposed crematory as a public or private nuisance before operation begins when the allegations primarily reflect fear, offense, and apprehension rather than concrete facts showing substantial harm.
2. Whether a lawful business may be restrained in advance absent a showing that it is a nuisance per se or that it will necessarily cause substantial injury in the proposed location and manner of operation.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal.
- The court held the action was premature because the complaint did not allege facts showing the crematory was a nuisance per se or that its operation would necessarily result in substantial, objective injury.
- Allegations centered on community horror and emotional distress were insufficient to justify anticipatory injunctive relief.
- Plaintiffs could seek relief later if actual operation created a nuisance supported by concrete evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Equity will not issue an injunction merely to relieve fears or apprehensions about a proposed use.
- A lawful business will not be enjoined in advance unless it is a nuisance per se or the proposed operation, under the specific circumstances, will necessarily (or with near certainty) cause substantial injury to persons or property.
- Subjective offense or moral/aesthetic objections, without material interference such as smoke, odors, noise, or safety hazards, do not establish a legally cognizable nuisance for anticipatory injunctive relief.
- When harm is speculative and future remedies remain available if a nuisance actually occurs, courts generally decline preemptive injunctions.

## Conclusion

The court declined to enjoin the proposed crematory before it began operating, holding that anticipatory nuisance relief requires concrete facts showing the use is inherently unlawful or will almost certainly cause substantial, objective interference, not allegations grounded in fear, distress, or community sensibilities.


State ex rel. Cunningham v. Feezell, 218 Tenn. 17, 400 S.W.2d 716 (Tenn. 1966)