(after stating the facts). This case is ■controlled by Gust v. Township of Canton, 342 Mich 436. Here, as in Gust, it is evident from the present nature and characteristics of Lyon township and particularly the area of farm land surrounding plaintiffs’ tract that the defensively pleaded ordinance ■does not validly restrict use of said tract to “farming, agricultural, and/or residential purposes.” The facts to which we have alluded overcome the presumption of validity of presently attempted ordinance-application and we are referred to no fact or ■circumstance on which it may be said that public health, safety, morals, or general welfare in the mentioned area will be affected, adversely or otherwise, by installation under statutory permit of that which is authorized in terms by the act of 1939, as amended (CL 1948 and CLS 1954, § 125.751 et seq. [Stat Ann 1953 Cum Supp § 5.278(1) et seq.]). Plaintiffs accordingly have established clear legal duty of the defendant clerk to issue the building permit they seek.

The trial judge analyzed the stipulated facts and various exhibits with care and reflective thought. His opinion, consisting of 13 printed pages, needs no review as against defendant’s assignments of error, since we are in full agreement with the essence thereof — that lawful use of plaintiffs’ farm cannot be “fixed or ‘pegged’ purely on the basis of its past use.”

*177 Tbe writ was properly issued. Affirmed. No costs.