Guttman v. Scott

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Guttman v. Scott

134 A. 922, 4 N.J. Misc. 866, 1926 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 94

DecidedOctober 21, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A. 922 (Guttman v. Scott) 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

Guttman v. Scott, 134 A. 922, 4 N.J. Misc. 866, 1926 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 94 (N.J. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue requiring respondent to issue to relator a building permit to make alterations in her two-and-one-half-story dwelling, occupied by two families, situate at the northwest comer of Clifford and Halstead streets, in East Orange. Eelator proposes to change such building so that it will contain stores on the first floor.

The permit was refused upon the ground that the zoning ordinance of East Orange prohibits buildings to be used as stores in the-zone in which relator’s lands are located.

From the stipulation of facts, it appears that relator’s lands are not within a strictly residential section of the city, and we are unable to distinguish this case from that of Ignaciunas v. Nutley, 99 N. J. L. 389, and the several cases following it.

The rale to show cause will, therefore, be made absolute, and a peremptory writ of mandamus issue.

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

Per Curiam.

This is a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue requiring respondent to issue to relator a building permit to make alterations in her two-and-one-half-story dwelling, occupied by two families, situate at the northwest comer of Clifford and Halstead streets, in East Orange. Eelator proposes to change such building so that it will contain stores on the first floor.

The permit was refused upon the ground that the zoning ordinance of East Orange prohibits buildings to be used as stores in the-zone in which relator’s lands are located.

From the stipulation of facts, it appears that relator’s lands are not within a strictly residential section of the city, and we are unable to distinguish this case from that of Ignaciunas v. Nutley, 99 N. J. L. 389, and the several cases following it.

The rale to show cause will, therefore, be made absolute, and a peremptory writ of mandamus issue.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A. 922, 4 N.J. Misc. 866, 1926 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guttman-v-scott-nj-1926.