Paramount Realty & Construction Co. v. Schmitt

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Paramount Realty & Construction Co. v. Schmitt

149 A. 893, 106 N.J.L. 587, 1929 N.J. LEXIS 198

DecidedMay 20, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 149 A. 893 (Paramount Realty & Construction Co. v. Schmitt) 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

Paramount Realty & Construction Co. v. Schmitt, 149 A. 893, 106 N.J.L. 587, 1929 N.J. LEXIS 198 (N.J. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appellant in the present case was the owner of a lot of land on the corner of Clinton and Sanford avenues, in the town of Irvington. He applied to the building inspector of that municipality for a permit allowing the erection of a two-story brick building, containing on the ground floor eight commercial stores and on the second floor five living apartments. The application was refused on the ground that the zoning ordinance of the municipality prohibited the erection of such a building in that locality. The appellant then applied to the board of adjustment to set aside the action of the building inspector, and, after a hearing, the board affirmed the latter’s act. The case was then taken to the Supreme Court on certiorari> and that tribunal affirmed the action of the building inspector and the board of adjustment. The present appeal is from the judgment of affirmance.

Eor the reasons stated in the per curiam opinion filed in the case of Steinberg v. Board of Adjustment of Nutley, post, p. 603, the judgment under review will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Parker, Black, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Yan Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Heteield, Dear, JJ. 12.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

The appellant in the present case was the owner of a lot of land on the corner of Clinton and Sanford avenues, in the town of Irvington. He applied to the building inspector of that municipality for a permit allowing the erection of a two-story brick building, containing on the ground floor eight commercial stores and on the second floor five living apartments. The application was refused on the ground that the zoning ordinance of the municipality prohibited the erection of such a building in that locality. The appellant then applied to the board of adjustment to set aside the action of the building inspector, and, after a hearing, the board affirmed the latter’s act. The case was then taken to the Supreme Court on certiorari> and that tribunal affirmed the action of the building inspector and the board of adjustment. The present appeal is from the judgment of affirmance.

Eor the reasons stated in the per curiam opinion filed in the case of Steinberg v. Board of Adjustment of Nutley, post, p. 603, the judgment under review will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Parker, Black, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Yan Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Heteield, Dear, JJ. 12.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A. 893, 106 N.J.L. 587, 1929 N.J. LEXIS 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paramount-realty-construction-co-v-schmitt-nj-1929.