Eaton v. Village of South Orange

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Eaton v. Village of South Orange

127 A. 795, 3 N.J. Misc. 264, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 280

DecidedFebruary 26, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A. 795 (Eaton v. Village of South Orange) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eaton v. Village of South Orange, 127 A. 795, 3 N.J. Misc. 264, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 280 (N.J. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cuela m.

This matter is before the court upon a rule to' show cause why an alternative or peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue requiring the building inspector of South Orange to issue to relators a permit to erect a four-story brick apartment-house to accommodate thirty-six (36) families, at the comer of South Orange avenue and Prospect street.

The matters presented upon this rule to show c^use are identical with those prosecuted in Michel v. South Orange, No. 247, of this term, with the exception that in that case the proposed building was three stories in height, designed to house twenty-seven (27) families, while here the height is four stories and the capacity thirty-six (36) families. Eor the reasons stated in the Michel case an alternative writ of mandamus will be allowed for the purpose that the pleadings may be so framed as to present the matters involved upon appeal.

Let such rule be entered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pee Cuela m.

This matter is before the court upon a rule to' show cause why an alternative or peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue requiring the building inspector of South Orange to issue to relators a permit to erect a four-story brick apartment-house to accommodate thirty-six (36) families, at the comer of South Orange avenue and Prospect street.

The matters presented upon this rule to show c^use are identical with those prosecuted in Michel v. South Orange, No. 247, of this term, with the exception that in that case the proposed building was three stories in height, designed to house twenty-seven (27) families, while here the height is four stories and the capacity thirty-six (36) families. Eor the reasons stated in the Michel case an alternative writ of mandamus will be allowed for the purpose that the pleadings may be so framed as to present the matters involved upon appeal.

Let such rule be entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A. 795, 3 N.J. Misc. 264, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eaton-v-village-of-south-orange-nj-1925.