Court Opinion

ID: 9943961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 15:34:51.006503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:54:18.813213
License: Public Domain

The chancellor granted defendant's *Page 122 
motion to dismiss made at conclusion of plaintiff's proofs. He did so on the ground that it was not a violation of Salem township's permanent zoning ordinance for defendant to sell, from a stand located in his Salem township property zoned for agricultural uses, produce not grown on that land. I think the chancellor erred.
The pertinent provisions of the ordinance are set forth in the footnote in Mr. Justice ADAMS' opinion. Among the land uses permitted in an agricultural district in Salem township, section 7.01(a) includes by reference those uses permitted by articles 4 and 5 of the ordinance. Uses permitted by article 4, in turn, include "the production of agricultural products through the direct tilling of the soil, together with facilities for thesale of the products thus produced thereon" (see section 4.01[e], emphasis added). A similarly restricted use is found in section 5.01(c) of article 5. In neither case may produce or goods not produced on the land be sold thereon. The chancellor erred in holding that the provisions of sections 4.01(e) and 5.01(c) did not bar what plaintiff's proofs established defendant was doing upon his land in Salem township. He should not have granted defendant's motion to dismiss before putting defendant to his proofs.
Since the order of dismissal must be reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings, I do not believe that we should pass upon the validity of the ordinance, the chancellor expressly having abstained from ruling thereon and the defendant not yet having offered any evidence with respect to his claim of such invalidity.
I would reverse and remand for further proceedings and I would allow plaintiff to tax his costs of this appeal.
BLACK, J., did not sit. *Page 123