Piaget-Del Corp. v. Kulik

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Piaget-Del Corp. v. Kulik

46 A.2d 379, 134 N.J.L. 147, 1946 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 173

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedMarch 29, 1946

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 46 A.2d 379 (Piaget-Del Corp. v. Kulik) 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

Piaget-Del Corp. v. Kulik, 46 A.2d 379, 134 N.J.L. 147, 1946 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 173 (N.J. 1946).

Pincite

Opinions

The opinion of the court was delivered by

PuESiriE, J.

Relator, on the return of a rule to show cause, was awarded a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding respondents (building inspector of the City of Clifton and the City of Clifton) to issue a permit to him for the erection of a building to be used as a “skating rink.” See Piaget-Del Corp. v. Kulik, 133 N. J. L. 485; 45 Atl. Rep. (2d) 125. Accordingly, the writ was issued.

Respondents petition this court that a record in alternative mandamus be moulded to the end that they may take an appeal from the judgment entered in the Supreme Court to the Court of Errors and Appeals. R. S. 2 :83 — 11. Trinkle v. Donnelly, 98 N. J. L. 298; 118 Atl. Rep. 417; Roberts v. Hetrick, 125 N. J. L. 633, 635; 17 Atl. Rep. (2d) 589. A like application was made to and denied by Mr. Justice *148 Heher, who sat alone pursuant to statute and who awarded the writ. See docket of the clerk of the Supreme Court.

Our careful study.of respondents’ application fails to disclose any justification for the exercise of our discretionary power in the premises. Cf. Roberts v. Hetrick, supra, (at p. 635). For, we are entirely satisfied that Mr. Justice Heher reached the correct result on the merits. Piaget-Del Corp. v. Kulik, supra.

Hence, we too deny respondents’ petition which is dismissed, with costs. Chief Justice Case dissents.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

PuESiriE, J.

Relator, on the return of a rule to show cause, was awarded a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding respondents (building inspector of the City of Clifton and the City of Clifton) to issue a permit to him for the erection of a building to be used as a “skating rink.” See Piaget-Del Corp. v. Kulik, 133 N. J. L. 485; 45 Atl. Rep. (2d) 125. Accordingly, the writ was issued.

Respondents petition this court that a record in alternative mandamus be moulded to the end that they may take an appeal from the judgment entered in the Supreme Court to the Court of Errors and Appeals. R. S. 2 :83 — 11. Trinkle v. Donnelly, 98 N. J. L. 298; 118 Atl. Rep. 417; Roberts v. Hetrick, 125 N. J. L. 633, 635; 17 Atl. Rep. (2d) 589. A like application was made to and denied by Mr. Justice *148 Heher, who sat alone pursuant to statute and who awarded the writ. See docket of the clerk of the Supreme Court.

Our careful study.of respondents’ application fails to disclose any justification for the exercise of our discretionary power in the premises. Cf. Roberts v. Hetrick, supra, (at p. 635). For, we are entirely satisfied that Mr. Justice Heher reached the correct result on the merits. Piaget-Del Corp. v. Kulik, supra.

Hence, we too deny respondents’ petition which is dismissed, with costs. Chief Justice Case dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.2d 379, 134 N.J.L. 147, 1946 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piaget-del-corp-v-kulik-nj-1946.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack