Allen v. City of Paterson

• Decision Date: 03 March 1924
• Docket Number: No. 48.,48.
• Citation: 123 A. 884
• Parties: ALLEN v. CITY OF PATERSON et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

123 A. 884

ALLEN

v. CITY OF PATERSON et al.

No. 48.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

March 3, 1924.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Certiorari by Henry A. Allen against the City of Paterson and others. From a judgment for defendants (121 Atl. 610), prosecutor appeals. Dismissed.,

Randal B. Lewis, of Paterson, for appellant.

Edward F. Merrey, of Paterson, for respondent City of Paterson.

Rosenkrans & Rosenkrans, of Paterson, for respondent Breen.

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court on certiorari, rendered by Mr. Justice Minturn sitting alone. It affirms a resolution of the board of zoning appeals of the city of Paterson, upon which was granted a permit by its building inspector allowing Harry J. Breen to erect a certain garage.

This case is not properly here. The reasons for reversal filed in the Supreme Court are not brought up with the record, and the grounds of appeal filed in this court go to the reasoning or holdings in the opinion of the Supreme Court, and not one of them avers that its judgment is erroneous. For the reasons stated in our opinion in Burhans v. City of Paterson, 123 Atl. 883, No. 31 of the present November term, 1923, this appeal must be dismissed. Another thing: we have repeatedly held that this court need not, and ordinarily will not, consider a question not raised and argued in the court below, unless it goes to jurisdiction or involves public policy. Marten v. Brown, 81 N. J. Law, 599, 80 Atl. 476; State v. Shupe, 88 N. J. Law, 610, 97 Atl. 271; Ruggies v. Ocean Accident, etc., Co., 89 N. J. Law, 180, 98 Atl. 318; State v. Heyer,

89 N. J. Law, 187, 98 Atl. 413, Ann. Cas. 1918D, 284; Fortein v. D. L. & W. B. R. Co.,

90 N. J. Law, 137, 139, 100 Atl. 194; McMichael v. Horay, 90 N. J. Law, 142, 100 Atl. 205; Shaw v. Bender, 90 N. J. Law, 147, 100 Atl. 196; Weiss v. Sullivan, 94 N. J. Law, 101. 193, 109 Atl. 344; State v. Belkota, 95 N. 1. Law, 416, 113 Atl. 142; Carroll v. Payne, 96 N. J. Law, 129, 130, 131, 114 Atl. 417; State v. Snell, 90 N. J. Law, 299, 114 Atl. 416; Franklin v. Millville (N. J. Err. & App.) 119 Atl. 29.

In the brief for Paterson it is submitted that there was nothing in the reasons assigned in the Supreme Court to suggest to counsel for the city that an attack was to be made upon the existence of the board of zoning appeals or of the validity of any part of the zoning ordinance. An examination of the reasons in the Supreme Court (which...