in a rural farming environment. The issue here is the off-site impact of infringements from a new business inserted into the neighborhood and whether that impact would offend persons of ordinary sensibilities. See Yeager, 324 N.E.2d at 851. Parker contends that Bonewitz and Del-linger bought their farmhouse knowing that they were in the middle of an agriculturally-zoned area, and he alleges that they "came to the nuisance in the sense that the complaints they have are compa rable to the complaints of anyone experiencing any discomfort by any agricultural operation." See Brief of Appellee at 14. Parker also notes that one who moves to an agricultural area simply cannot complain of discomfort based upon agricultural uses. And Parker asserts that Bonewitz and Dellinger purchased a (1917) (<HOLDING>). The United States Supreme Court has also
holding that a loss of consortium is separate and independent from the primary action holding wheat threshing is a business entirely separate and independent of farming holding that  1441c does not allow the remand of claims that are not separate and independent holding that the morrison control test  is simply not dispositive of a challenge to the fca as it involves an entirely different lawsuit and requires entirely different control mechanisms holding that separate tax identity existed where entity engaged in its own business ventures separate from its stockholder and in independent legal actions against third parties