Deerfield Realty Co. v. Hague
| Decision Date | 02 August 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 213.,213. |
| Citation | 151 A. 373 |
| Parties | DEERFIELD REALTY CO. v. HAGUE et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Application for mandamus by the Deer-field Realty Company against Frank Hague and others, the members of the Board of Commissioners of Jersey City, constituting the Mayor and Aldermen of Jersey City on rule to show cause.
Alternative writ of mandamus allowed.
Argued January term, 1930, before TRENCHARD, LLOYD, and CASE, JJ.
Carey & Lane and Harry Lane, all of Jersey City, for relator.
Thomas J. Brogan, of Jersey City, for respondents.
This matter comes before the court on a rule directing the respondents to show cause why an alternative or peremptory writ of mandamus should not be granted to the relator directing the respondents, the members of the board of commissioners of Jersey City, to issue to the relator a building permit for a building to be used for the sale of gasoline, oil, and automobile accessories on the property of the relator situate on the Hudson County Boulevard in Jersey City. The block in which the property is situate is zoned for business purposes.
The application is in evidence and is on an authorized printed form furnished by the building department of Jersey City. It contains appropriate data inserted in the blanks left for that purpose. The uses to be made of the structure are set forth, as are also the proportions of the building and the materials of which it is to be built, the specific location of the property, both by numbers, lot and block numbers, and chart. The application has attached thereto an acknowledgment on the affidavit form appended setting forth that the representations in the application are true; and the date of filing is indorsed thereon. The application was made in writing in duplicate, of which one copy was filed with the city clerk for the board of commissioners and one copy with the building department. The steps taken by the relator appear to be in full compliance with the requirements of the appropriate ordinance entitled, "An Ordinance to regulate the erection and alteration of all buildings and structures to be used or designed to be used for any purpose other than as residences or for living apartments." The ordinance sets forth that after the board of commissioners has inspected, or has caused to be inspected, the premises mentioned in the applications filed and if the statements set forth in the applications are found to be true, and the judgment of the majority of the board of commissioners is that if permission is granted the same will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deal Gardens, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Village of Loch Arbor
...substitution for an outmoded plan. Therefore we hold that the 1948 ordinance was validly enacted.' See also Deerfield Realty Co. v. Hague, & N.J.Misc. 637, 151 A. 373 (Sup.Ct.1930); Glen Rock, etc., v. Bd. of Adjust. etc., Glen Rock, 80 N.J.Super. 79, 192 A.2d 865 (App.Div.1963); Rockaway E......
-
Alexander v. City of Minneapolis
...Hamtramck City Engineer, 322 Mich. 250, 33 N.W.2d 781; State ex rel. Kramer v. Schwartz, 336 Mo. 932, 82 S.W.2d 63; Deerfield Realty Co. v. Hague, 8 N.J.Misc. 637, 151 A. 373; Matter of Reade v. Moss, 186 Misc. 156, 58 N.Y.S.2d 390; Kline v. City of Harrisburg, 362 Pa. 438, 68 A.2d 182; Sta......
-
Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Village of Palatine
...v. Banzhaf, 149 Misc. 361, 267 N.Y.S. 729; McEachern v. Town of High land Park, 124 Tex. 36, 73 S.W.2d 487; Deerfield Realty Co. v. Hague, 8 N.J.Misc. 637, 151 A. 373; Butvinik v. Jersey City, 6 N.J.Misc. 803, 142 A. 759. We are aware that some few jurisdictions do not follow this Under the......
-
Hirschorn v. Castles
...was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. G. M. S. Holding Corp. v. Plague, 100 N. J. Law, 401, 126 A. 425; Deerfield Realty Co. v. Hague, 151 A. 373, 8 N. J. Misc. 637; Bowen v. Jersey City, 132 A. 334, 4 N. J. Misc. 228. In the following cases the reasons advanced by respondents in jus......