Thе appellant brought this action for injunction and damages in three counts for a continuing trespаss, continuing nuisance and breach of contract against the appellee which is an adjoining property owner. Count 1 shows that the appellant purchased its property on February 10,1970. It alleges that about April 28, 1967, the appellee graded its property and placed large quаntities of dirt on the property now owned by the appellant. It also alleges that the natural flоw of water was changed by the grading and large quantities of water are dumped on the appellant’s property. Count 2 alleges that the appellant’s predecessor in title, Plymouth Development Company, and the appellee entered into a written agreement on April 28, 1967, wherеby each agreed to grade its property according to certain specifications and that the appellee had failed to do so. Count 3 alleges that the appellee’s actions constitute a continuing nuisance.
*647 Appellee filed its defenses and counterclaimed for injunction and damages. It asserted that in the written agreement of April 28, 1967, the appellant’s predecessor in title, Plymouth Development Company, admitted that it had graded its property leaving the appellee’s property at a higher elevation; that Plymouth agreed its propеrty would be graded to a specified slope; that this was done by Plymouth in compliance with said agreement; that said grade existed until February 10, 1970, when the appellee changed the grade causing аdditional damage to the appellant.
This appeal is from the trial court’s denial of aрpellant’s motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim and the granting of appellee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to counts 1 and 3 of the complaint, which motion was treated as a motion for summary judgment. Held:
1. Under the evidence submitted, there is genuine issue of material fact existing on the сounterclaim. The trial court did not err in denying the motion for summary judgment on this basis.
2. The appellant cоntends that the allegations of count 1 and count 3 of the complaint and the evidence submitted in оpposition to appellee’s motion for summary judgment on these counts show a continuing tresрass and a continuing nuisance and therefore these counts should not have been dismissed. Appеllee contends that its act of grading its property was completed on April 28, 1967, and that the statutе of limitation bars these counts of the complaint which was filed on January 12, 1972.
"The doctrine of the аpplication of the statute of limitations to actions for nuisance is discussed, with little disagreemеnt, in quite a number of text-books and decisions. A nuisance, permanent and continuing in its character, thе destruction or damage being at
*648
once complete upon the completion of thе act by which the nuisance is created, gives but one right of action, which accrues immediately upon the creation of the nuisance and against which the statute of limitations begins, from that time, to run. [Cits.] Where a nuisance is not permanent in its character, but is one which can and should be abated by the person erecting or maintaining it, every continuance of the nuisance is a fresh nuisance fоr which a fresh action will lie. 3 Bl. Com. 220. This action accrues at the time of such continuance, and аgainst it the statute of limitations runs only from the time of such accrual. 'Where the original nuisance to lаnd is of a permanent character, so that the damages inflicted thereby are permanеnt, a recovery not only may, but must, be had for the entire damages, in one action; and such damages accrue from the time the nuisance is created, and from that time the statute of limitations begins to run. In the case of nuisances which are transient rather than permanent in their character, thе continuance of the injurious acts is considered a new nuisance, for which a fresh action will lie; and although the original cause of action is barred, damages may be recovered for the continuance of the nuisance.’ Chicago etc. R. R. v. McAuley [
The appellant producеd evidence that during rainfalls large accumulations of water and dirt flowed over and were deрosited on its property because of appellee’s grading of its property which changed the elevation of the property and altered its natural contour. These facts would support a finding of a continuing trespass and a continuing nuisance.
Reid v. City of Atlanta, 73
Ga. 523;
Bodin v. Gill,
Accordingly, the trial court erred in sustaining the *649 motion for judgment on the pleadings which was treated as a motion for summary judgment, as to counts 1 and 3 of the petition.
There is no merit in aрpellee’s contention that the appellant is without standing to bring this action since it purchased the property with full knowledge of the circumstances surrounding it. Code § 72-105;
Roughton v. Thiele Kaolin Co.,
Judgment affirmed in part; reversed in part.