Brodnick v. Munger

102 N.E.2d 48, 64 Ohio Law. Abs. 292, 1951 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 351
CourtMontgomery County Court of Common Pleas
DecidedOctober 22, 1951
DocketNo. 102530
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 102 N.E.2d 48 (Brodnick v. Munger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brodnick v. Munger, 102 N.E.2d 48, 64 Ohio Law. Abs. 292, 1951 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 351 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1951).

Opinion

OPINION

By MILLS, J.

This matter was submitted to the court upon the pleadings, an agreed statement of facts, and briefs of counsel.

The petition recites as follows:

“Plaintiff brings this action under §12102-1 to §12102-16, inclusive, GC, known as the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, for the purpose of obtaining by this court a declaration [293]*293of the rights, status and duties existing between the parties hereto, and other persons similarly situated and residing in trailers in Montgomery County, Ohio.

“Plaintiff says that the defendants, Harry J. Munger, John E. Brumbaugh and John F. Ahlers, comprise the regularly elected and acting Board of County Commissioners of the County of Montgomery and State of Ohio; that the defendant, Dayton Power and Light Company, is a public utility corporation engaged in the business of supplying electrical power and natural gas to the county of Montgomery and various other localities; that the defendant, Robert Gray, is the duly appointed building inspector of Montgomery County, Ohio, appointed by the said Board of County Commissioners of Montgomery County, Ohio, and acting under the authority delegated to him by the said Board of County Commissioners.

“Plaintiff further alleges that on June 17th, 1947, the Board of County Commissioners, composed of the said Harry J. Munger, John E. Brumbaugh and John F. Ahlers, adopted by resolution a code of building regulations known as the Building Code for Unincorporated Areas of the County of Montgomery, State of Ohio, by virtue of authority contained in §2480 GC.

“Plaintiff further says that at all times hereinafter alleged he was the owner of a 1948 Kozy Coach House Trailer; that on or about July 10th he placed the said trailer upon a tract of land known as 2836 Horlacher, Van Burén Township, Montgomery County, Ohio, which tract was owned by the father of this plaintiff and adjacent to his father’s residence; that said trailer was parked on the said premises described, resting upon the two wheels of said trailer, the front end of said trailer being supported by cement blocks; that a foundation of.cement blocks was built extending from the ground to the floor level of said trailer; that said house trailer was intended to be used as a home for the plaintiff and his Wife; that he brings this action for the benefit of himself and other residents of Montgomery County, Ohio, residing in trailers and located in the unincorporated areas of Montgomery County, Ohio.

“Plaintiff further alleges that on or about June 30th, 1950, he requested the defendant, the Dayton Power and Light Company, to connect electrical power to his trailer; located at 2836 Horlacher in Van Burén Township from existing power lines in the vicinity; that this plaintiff was told by an official of said defendant corporation that such a connection could not be made until he had obtained a permit from the Montgomery County Building Inspector, authorizing said connection; that on the same day the plaintiff called at the office of [294]*294the Building Inspector, Montgomery County, Ohio, for the purpose of obtaining a permit which would enable him to obtain electrical service; that at that time this plaintiff was informed by the defendant, Robert Gray, acting in his official capacity as building inspector for Montgomery County, Ohio, that he would not authorize the inspection required as a prerequisite for the issuing of such a permit for the reason that a trailer is a residential building within the meaning of the Building Code for Unincorporated Areas of the County of Montgomery, and that since said trailer did not comply with said Building Code for want of a permanent foundation, in accordance with specifications outlined in said code, no permit could or would be issued for the reason that said trailer could not be used for a residence in any event and irrespective of the result of said inspection of the wiring.

“Plaintiff further alleges that trailers are constructed primarily of metal; that most trailers are not flat on the bottom thereof and afford no means of affixing same to a cement foundation as required by the Building Code in a manner which would assure its remaining on said foundation under adverse weather conditions.”

This plaintiff further says that the pertinent sections of the Building Code for Unincorporated Areas of Montgomery County, Ohio, pertaining to electrical installations are found in Chapter 13 of said Code, Section 1302 of which reads as follows:

“(a) New Buildings — No person engaged in the business of transmission or sale of electricity shall make any installation connecting service lines with electric wiring and apparatus in any building, or furnish electricity to any building, until an inspection of such wiring and apparatus is made by the County Building-Inspector or the Bureau approved by him and a certificate of approval issued. A copy of the certificate shall be forwarded to the person making the service connection.

“(b) Existing Buildings — No person engaged in the business of transmission or sale of electricity shall continue furnishing-electricity to any building after being notified in writing by the County Building-Inspector or the Bureau approved by him that the wiring system is defective, has been altered or added to and is not in accordance with the provisions of this Code. All such wiring, material, apparatus and/or equipment shall comply with the requirements of this Code and inspection of such additional wiring apparatus and feeders shall be made and approved as provided in Section 1302 (a). A copy of the certificate of approval of such inspection shall be forwarded to the person furnishing the electricity.”

[295]*295The pertinent Section regulating footings and foundation walls is Section 718-1 of the Building Code, which reads as follows:

“Section 718-1 — Footings and foundation Walls.

“(a) Footings of all foundation walls shall be of poured concrete. The base areas of all footings and foundations shall be proportioned as specified in Section 605(c).

“(b) Solid masonry foundation walls and those of concrete block shall be not less in thickness than the wall immediately above and in no case less than 8 inches thick.

“(c) When the stresses due to earth pressure, surcharges and superimposed loads exceed the maximum working stress permitted by this Code for the materials used, and the additional stresses are not otherwise provided for, the wall thickness shall be increased to bring the stresses within the required limits.

“(d) All foundation walls shall extend below the level of frost action and in no case less than 30 inches below finished grade excepting non-residential buildings of 600 square feet or less in area may have a minimum depth of 12 inches.

“(e) Ventilators shall'be provided in foundation walls for the space between wood constructed floors and the ground surface where such space is not utilized as a basement and otherwise ventilated. Not less than two (2) ventilator openings aggregating one (1) square foot of area for each 25 lineal feet of exterior wall shall be provided. Such openings shall be covered with gratings or wire mesh in which the mesh openings are not larger than one-half inch in any direction.”

Section 636, Sub-section (o), of said Code, further provides that all said foundations shall be concrete, 18 inches between the ground level and any wood portion of. said building. It reads as follows:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Town of Manchester v. Phillips
180 N.E.2d 333 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1962)
State Ex Rel. Morris v. City of Nashville
343 S.W.2d 847 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1961)
Napierkowski v. Township of Gloucester
150 A.2d 481 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1959)
Stary v. Brooklyn City
114 N.E.2d 633 (Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
102 N.E.2d 48, 64 Ohio Law. Abs. 292, 1951 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brodnick-v-munger-ohctcomplmontgo-1951.