Katz v. Ackerman

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Katz v. Ackerman

133 A. 922, 4 N.J. Misc. 524, 1926 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 177

DecidedMay 25, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 133 A. 922 (Katz v. Ackerman) 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

Katz v. Ackerman, 133 A. 922, 4 N.J. Misc. 524, 1926 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 177 (N.J. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case comes before the court on a rule to show cause why an alternative or peremptory, writ of mandamus should not issue to the defendants directing a building permit to issue to build a two-family dwelling-house at No. 117 Meade avenue, Passaic, New Jersey. An agreed state of facts is submitted in writing duly signed by the respective attorneys and filed, from which it appears the refusal to issue such permit is based solely on the ground that the territory in which the building proposed to be erected' is' within a zoning district.

After considering the facts, we think a peremptory writ of mandamus should issue directing a building permit to be issued in accordance with the facts, and such will be the order of the court.

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

Per Curiam.

This case comes before the court on a rule to show cause why an alternative or peremptory, writ of mandamus should not issue to the defendants directing a building permit to issue to build a two-family dwelling-house at No. 117 Meade avenue, Passaic, New Jersey. An agreed state of facts is submitted in writing duly signed by the respective attorneys and filed, from which it appears the refusal to issue such permit is based solely on the ground that the territory in which the building proposed to be erected' is' within a zoning district.

After considering the facts, we think a peremptory writ of mandamus should issue directing a building permit to be issued in accordance with the facts, and such will be the order of the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A. 922, 4 N.J. Misc. 524, 1926 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katz-v-ackerman-nj-1926.