F. L. & P. Inv. Co. v. Dowling

• Citation: 134 A. 555
• Decision Date: 30 September 1926
• Docket Number: No. 227.,227.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
• Parties: F. L. & P. INV. CO. v. DOWLING, Inspector of Buildings.

134 A. 555

F. L. & P. INV. CO.

v. DOWLING, Inspector of Buildings.

No. 227.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Sept. 30, 1926.

Application for mandamus by the F. L. & P. Investment Company against Thomas J. Dowling, Inspector of Buildings of the City of Orange. On rule to show cause. Peremptory writ awarded.

Argued May term, 1926, before PARKER, BLACK, and CAMPBELL, JJ.

Daniel J. Brennen, of Orange, for relator.

William A. Calhoun, of Orange, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. This is a zoning ordinance case. The relator wishes to erect several stores on his property on the northwest corner of Scotland road and Argyle avenue in the city of Orange, and a building permit was denied on the sole ground that the locality is zoned by the ordinance exclusively for single family dwellings.

Relator relies on Ignaciunas v. Risley, 98 N. J. Law, 712, 121 A. 783, and in reply it is urged that that case is not controlling for two reasons: First, that another statute now applied, viz. chapter 146 of the Laws of 1924 (P. L. p. 324): secondly, that the character of building now desired is different from that considered in the Ignaciunas Case.

We are unable to perceive any substantial difference in the character of building which should lead us to a different determination; and, so far as relates to the act of 1924, the case of Krumgold v. Jersey City, 130 A. 635, cited for respondent seems to us in point as requiring that the present rule should be made absolute.

A peremptory writ is therefore awarded.