206 N.E.2d 584 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1965
This is an appeal on questions of law and fact from a decree of the court below, arising out of appellants' petition for an injunction to abate appellees' operation of a mink farm in the unincorporated area of Liberty Township, Butler County, Ohio.
Plaintiffs below, appellants here, claim two causes of action: (1) a common nuisance; and (2) a violation of the Butler County Zoning Resolution relative to the use, maintenance and location of land and buildings.
The court below found that the evidence failed by the required degree of proof to show that the operation of the farm constituted a common nuisance and, accordingly, declined to grant the relief requested in appellants' first cause of action. With this finding this court is in agreement.
The decree of the court below, however, must be modified as to finding that the location of the mink ranch is in violation of the Zoning Resolution of Butler County, even though the appellants may be guilty of laches in the prosecution of *107 their action and, accordingly, are not entitled to relief in their second cause of action. It must be further modified as to the order prohibiting further expansion of the mink ranch or the construction of new sheds until the Zoning Resolution is complied with relative to certain requirements.
The Zoning Resolution is in evidence as plaintiffs' Exhibit "D." It recites in Article I (Purposes) that it is enacted pursuant to the authority of Chapter 303 of the Ohio Revised Code. Attention is directed specifically here to Section
"Sections
"Agriculture" as used in this chapter is defined in Section
While the Attorney General in opinion No. 3607, at page 105 of 1954 Opinions of Attorney General, held that an identical section of the Code (Section
It is the opinion of this court that the phrase "animal husbandry" does include the operation of a mink ranch as an agricultural pursuit and, consequently, it is not within the authority of the board of county commissioners to zone.
It is for this reason that plaintiffs' second cause of action is not well taken. The decree entered in the court below will *108 accordingly be modified in compliance with the provisions of this opinion.
Judgment accordingly.
HILDEBRANT and LONG, JJ., concur.
HOVER, P. J. This is an appeal on questions of law from a finding of the court below that the appellants are guilty of contempt of court for violating the court's injunction entered in case No. 1201 on the docket of this court decided today, and arising out of the order of the court below in that case.
The decree of the court below out of which the present contempt proceedings arises was modified on an appeal on questions of law and fact. The modification eliminates from the decree of the court below that portion of the decree wherein the defendants here were enjoined from violating the provisions of the Butler County Zoning Resolution.
Since that portion of the decree out of which the contempt proceedings grow is determined to be an invalid order, any contempt thereunder must necessarily fail, and the conviction, therefore, is accordingly reversed and set aside.
Judgment accordingly.
HILDEBRANT and LONG, JJ., concur. *109