Chancellor Dev. Corp. v. Senior
| Decision Date | 26 June 1926 |
| Parties | CHANCELLOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. SENIOR, Inspector of Buildings, et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Application by the Chancellor Development Corporation for an alternative writ of mandamus to be directed against William H. Senior, Inspector of Buildings, and others. Writ denied.
Philip J. Schotland, of Newark, for relator.
George S. Harris, of Montclair, for respondents.
Argued before GUMMERE, C. J., at Chambers.
GUMMERE, C. J. I think the application should be denied. The Legislature, by this amendatory statute of 1926, has created this board of adjustment a tribunal of review, and has vested in it the power to determine, on the appeal of the property owner, whether this particular building, located in this particular place, is a public menace to the health, welfare, or safety of the community. That is a fact which it is to determine, after hearing testimony. It has heard testimony and has determined that it is, according to the reading of the report made by the board; its decision not being based solely upon the ground that it violates the ordinance, but that this building, located in this place, will be a public menace. Now whether that finding is justified by the proofs before it is a question of fact. If there is no evidence to sustain it, it cannot stand. If it is justified by the proofs before the board, that would be the end of the relator's alleged right to a permit.
There seems to me not to be a case for an alternative writ for the purpose of reviewing the action of the inspector, but for a certiorari to review the action of the board of adjustment.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrison v. Bd. of Adjustment of Town of Montclair
...J. Sup.) 135 A. 472; Caldwell v. Saul (N. J. Sup.) 135 A. 691; Hench v. East Orange (N. J. Sup.) 130 A. 363; Chancellor Development Corporation v. Senior (N. J. Sup.) 134 A. 337; Burg v. Ackerman (N. J. Sup.) 135 A. 672; Silvester v. Princeton (N. J. Sup.) 139 A. 517; Oxford Construction Co......
-
Somers v. Borough of Bradley Beach
...58, p. 177, P. L. 1925. The board of adjustment as there constituted was said by Chief Justice Gummere in Chancellor Development Corp. v. Senior, 134 A. 337, 4 N. J. Misc. 633, to be "a tribunal of review"; by Mr. Justice (now Chancellor) Campbell in Hendey v. Ackerman, 103 N. J. Law, 305, ......
-
Fonda v. O'Donohue, 288.
...was reasonable in its application. Sharff v. East Orange Board of Adjustment, 143 A. 77, 6 N. J. Misc. 905; Chancellor Development Co. v. Senior, 134 A. 337, 4 N. J. Misc. 633; Benbak Construction Co. v. Orange Board of Adjustment, 142 A. 357, 6 N. J. Misc. 543, 544; Smith v. Kearny Zoning ......
-
Gibbs Bldg. & Const. Co. v. Town of Belleville
...building inspector, had any authority whatever in the matter. Eaton v. City of Newark (N. J. Sup.) 128 A. 377; Chancellor Development Corporation v. Senior (N. J. Sup.) 134 A. 337. "An appeal (to the board of adjustment) stays all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from." Cha......