(county board found plaintiffs violated restrictive covenant for keeping of livestock; plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action seeking declaration that restrictive covenant not be enforced against them; trial court granted plaintiff’s motion and permitted goats, “Fred” and “Barney,” to be kept on plaintiff’s lot; appellate court affirmed holding that goats were kept for pleasure rather than profit or utility and were pets, not livestock; restrictive covenant was so broad as to allow for “virtually any animal which may be treated as a ‘household pet’ to be kept on homeowner’s property, so long as the animal is not kept, bred, or maintained for any commercial purposes and does not attach horses or horsemen).