State ex rel. Raskind v. Dowling

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State ex rel. Raskind v. Dowling

138 A. 103, 5 N.J. Misc. 715, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 121

DecidedJuly 9, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A. 103 (State ex rel. Raskind v. Dowling) 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

State ex rel. Raskind v. Dowling, 138 A. 103, 5 N.J. Misc. 715, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 121 (N.J. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The relator applied to the building inspector of the city of Orange for a permit to erect a four-story brick apart[716]*716ment-house on premises owned by him in that city. The building inspector denied the permit for the sole reason that the land in question was in residence “A” district, which was zoned against apartment-houses.

The relator thereupon obtained an alternative writ of mandamus to which a return was made, which was demurred to. There is also presented a stipulation as to the facts.

It thereby appears that the city of Orange has a board of adjustment, whose powers have been amplified by the act of 1926, chapter 315, and that no appeal was taken by the relator to that board. In that situation the relator is not entitled to a writ of mandamus against the building inspector. So the Supreme Court has determined in several cases. See Burg v. Ackerman, 5 N. J. Mis. R. 96; Paramount Realty Co. v. Schmitt, 5 Id. 177; State v. Dowling, 5 Id. 180.

The application for the writ of mandamus must be denied, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The relator applied to the building inspector of the city of Orange for a permit to erect a four-story brick apart[716]*716ment-house on premises owned by him in that city. The building inspector denied the permit for the sole reason that the land in question was in residence “A” district, which was zoned against apartment-houses.

The relator thereupon obtained an alternative writ of mandamus to which a return was made, which was demurred to. There is also presented a stipulation as to the facts.

It thereby appears that the city of Orange has a board of adjustment, whose powers have been amplified by the act of 1926, chapter 315, and that no appeal was taken by the relator to that board. In that situation the relator is not entitled to a writ of mandamus against the building inspector. So the Supreme Court has determined in several cases. See Burg v. Ackerman, 5 N. J. Mis. R. 96; Paramount Realty Co. v. Schmitt, 5 Id. 177; State v. Dowling, 5 Id. 180.

The application for the writ of mandamus must be denied, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A. 103, 5 N.J. Misc. 715, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-raskind-v-dowling-nj-1927.