Langheinz v. Kaltenbach

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Langheinz v. Kaltenbach

129 A. 926, 3 N.J. Misc. 659, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 155

DecidedJune 3, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 129 A. 926 (Langheinz v. Kaltenbach) 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

Langheinz v. Kaltenbach, 129 A. 926, 3 N.J. Misc. 659, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 155 (N.J. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a. rule to show .cause why a writ of mandamus should not- issue- commanding William T. Kaltenbach, build-, ing inspector of .the city -of Elizabeth,, to issue to the relator a permit to. .erect a two and a half story brick building for a drug store- and.'dwelling upon his lot on the northwest corner of Elmota and .Jersey avenue, and known as No.-130 Elmora avenue, in the city of Elizabeth, New Jersey.

. Our examination of the.record presented, and a careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, leads us to the conclusion -that- the present case- is controlled, by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union County Development Co. v. Kaltenbach, 3 N. J. Mis. R. 341, and. Falco v. Kaltenbach, 3 Id. 333.

As all the facts are before us, a peremptory writ will be awarded, with privilege of applying for an order molding the pleadings if an appeal is desired.

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 writ of mandamus should not- issue- commanding William T. Kaltenbach, build-, ing inspector of .the city -of Elizabeth,, to issue to the relator a permit to. .erect a two and a half story brick building for a drug store- and.'dwelling upon his lot on the northwest corner of Elmota and .Jersey avenue, and known as No.-130 Elmora avenue, in the city of Elizabeth, New Jersey.

. Our examination of the.record presented, and a careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, leads us to the conclusion -that- the present case- is controlled, by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union County Development Co. v. Kaltenbach, 3 N. J. Mis. R. 341, and. Falco v. Kaltenbach, 3 Id. 333.

As all the facts are before us, a peremptory writ will be awarded, with privilege of applying for an order molding the pleadings if an appeal is desired.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A. 926, 3 N.J. Misc. 659, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langheinz-v-kaltenbach-nj-1925.