West End Investment Co. v. Osterman

Supreme Court of New Jersey

West End Investment Co. v. Osterman

136 A. 926, 5 N.J. Misc. 335, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 251

DecidedMarch 7, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 136 A. 926 (West End Investment Co. v. Osterman) 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

West End Investment Co. v. Osterman, 136 A. 926, 5 N.J. Misc. 335, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 251 (N.J. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is the usual rule allowed in a zoning case, why a writ of mandamus should not issue directed to the inspector of buildings in the township of Maplewood, directing him to issue a building permit to the relator to build on the premises located on the northerly side of Parker avenue, in that township, two buildings, each two stories in height; each of brick construction for the first story and stucco and hollow tile for the second story; each building to be used for three stores and two apartments on the second floor. The only reason advanced for a refusal to issue a permit is the ordinance of March 15th, 1921, which divides the township into two districts, one of which is a residential district, the premises involved being in that district in which the erection of buildings to he used as stores is prohibited. This is not a legal excuse under the many eases decided by onr courts, such as Ignaciunas v. Risley, 98 N. J. L. 712; affirmed, 99 Id. 389. A peremptory writ of mandamus is directed to issue in this case. The relator is entited to costs.

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

Per Curiam.

This is the usual rule allowed in a zoning case, why a writ of mandamus should not issue directed to the inspector of buildings in the township of Maplewood, directing him to issue a building permit to the relator to build on the premises located on the northerly side of Parker avenue, in that township, two buildings, each two stories in height; each of brick construction for the first story and stucco and hollow tile for the second story; each building to be used for three stores and two apartments on the second floor. The only reason advanced for a refusal to issue a permit is the ordinance of March 15th, 1921, which divides the township into two districts, one of which is a residential district, the premises involved being in that district in which the erection of buildings to he used as stores is prohibited. This is not a legal excuse under the many eases decided by onr courts, such as Ignaciunas v. Risley, 98 N. J. L. 712; affirmed, 99 Id. 389. A peremptory writ of mandamus is directed to issue in this case. The relator is entited to costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A. 926, 5 N.J. Misc. 335, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/west-end-investment-co-v-osterman-nj-1927.