Handy v. City of East Orange

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Handy v. City of East Orange

126 A. 926, 2 N.J. Misc. 884, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 90

DecidedSeptember 24, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A. 926 (Handy v. City of East 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

Handy v. City of East Orange, 126 A. 926, 2 N.J. Misc. 884, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 90 (N.J. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The case came before us upon an agreed state of facts. An alternative writ of mandamus was allowed and the city made a return thereto. The facts in substantial particulars are not unlike these presented in case number 70 of this term, State, ex rel. The Jersey Land Co. v. John Scott, Building Inspector of East Orange, in which we allowed a peremptory mandamus. We are of the opinion that for the reasons advanced in that case, based upon the recent determination of the Court of Errors and Appeals, in State v. Risley, 2 N. J. Adv. Rep. 852, as well as upon the conclusions reached in Handy v. South Orange, 118 Atl. Rep. 838; Vernon v. Westfield, 1 N. J. Adv. Rep. 1031, and Ignaciunas v. Nutley, 2 Id. 852, that a peremptory writ of mandamus go in this case.

Such will be the rule.

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

Per Curiam.

The case came before us upon an agreed state of facts. An alternative writ of mandamus was allowed and the city made a return thereto. The facts in substantial particulars are not unlike these presented in case number 70 of this term, State, ex rel. The Jersey Land Co. v. John Scott, Building Inspector of East Orange, in which we allowed a peremptory mandamus. We are of the opinion that for the reasons advanced in that case, based upon the recent determination of the Court of Errors and Appeals, in State v. Risley, 2 N. J. Adv. Rep. 852, as well as upon the conclusions reached in Handy v. South Orange, 118 Atl. Rep. 838; Vernon v. Westfield, 1 N. J. Adv. Rep. 1031, and Ignaciunas v. Nutley, 2 Id. 852, that a peremptory writ of mandamus go in this case.

Such will be the rule.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A. 926, 2 N.J. Misc. 884, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/handy-v-city-of-east-orange-nj-1924.