Case Name: PRITZ v. MESSER et al
Court: Cincinnati Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1924
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 620
Docket Number: No. 50089
Parties: PRITZ v. MESSER et al
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 620–620

Head Matter:
No. 645
PRITZ v. MESSER et al
Cincinnati Superior Court
No. 50089.
Decided 1924
874. ORDINANCES — Constitutionality of Zoning Ordinance sustained.
187. BUILDINGS — 1. One who sustains special damage through infraction of zoning ordinance entitled to equitable relief.
2. Where conditions precedent to buildingfl permit are not followed, the permit is void.
3. Residence owner will sustain special damage by erection of eleven story apartment house on abutting lot.
Attorneys — Clore, Schwab & MeCaslin and Henry B. Striet, for Pritz; Heintz & Heintz and Landon Forchheimer, for Messer et; all of Cincinnati.

Opinion:
MARX, J.
Epitomized Opinion
Pritz, a resident and owner of a house on Reading Roadj brought action for a restraining order against Messer and others, owners of an adjoining lot in the city of Cincinnati. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant owners were about to erect an eleven story apartment building having a greater height and percentage of lot occupancy than that permitted by the zoning ordinance of Cincinnati (Par. 71-1924) pursuant to a permit issued by the building commissioner prior to the effective date of said zoning law. The plaintiff also alleged that the building permit was not lawfully issued because the conditions precedent to its issue were not complied with in numerous particulars. The plaintiff further claims that the erection of said apartment would result in special damake to her. In granting the relief prayed for, the court held:
1. The zoning ordinance of Cincinnati is constitutional. (Santaggelo v. Cincinnati, Abs.)
2. Where a person shows that he will sustain special damages, if defendant is permitted to erect a proposed building, in violation of a zoning resolution, the former is entitled to equitable aid in enjoining the same.
3. As the plaintiff would suffer special damage if the building were erected, she was entitled to maintain an action for an injunction^ to enforce the restrictions contained in theW| zoning ordinance.
4. As the submitted plans and specifications were insufficient to enable the building commissioner to exercise his discretion with reference thereto, as required in the Ordinance, Secs. 340 and 341 of the Ordinances of Cincinnati, a permit so issued was void.