Horwitz v. Jones, 229.
| Decision Date | 23 March 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 229.,229. |
| Citation | 171 A. 552 |
| Parties | HORWITZ et al. v. JONES, Mayor, et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari by Edward Horwitz, individually, and another against Arthur H. Jones, Mayor of the Town of Kearny, and others.
Judgment for prosecutors.
Argued January term, 1934, before BROGAN, C. J., and TRENCHARD and HEIIER, JJ.
Louis Weiss, of Newark, for prosecutors.
Arthur B. Archibald, of Kearny, for defendants.
The record before us reveals that on August 15, 1933, the S. & E. Trading Company, by letter, applied to the governing body of the town of Kearny, N. J., for a permit to erect a building to be used for storing celluloid scrap. The letter stated that the building would be fireproof in structure, equipped with a sprinkler system, and would be located in the meadow area approximately 600 feet east of Schuyler avenue in the town of Kearny.
On August 16, 1933, the applicant was notified that its application was received, read, and approved. A permit was later issued and the S. & E. Trading Company proceeded with the building. On September 14, 1933, the applicant was notified that at a meeting of the governing body, held the previous day, the permission to erect the building was revoked.
A writ of certiorari was allowed to review the action of the municipal body in revoking this permit. The return and the depositions taken indicate that the prosecutors of this writ, on August 21, 1933, filed with the building inspector of the municipality, plans of the building which were approved, and the building permit was issued. Thereafter the prosecutors entered into a building contract with a builder and also contracted for the installation of a sprinkler system and have paid out, on account of these contracts which were under way, the sum of $2,400.
The defendants, in justification of the revocation of the building permit, say that the permit was granted by the governing body because of the representation made by the prosecutors that the building Would be located 1,000 feet away from Schuyler avenue. This statement is denied by the prosecutors. It is not contended that there was any violation of any building code or zoning ordinance of the municipality. The letter of application, which is in the record before us, is very persuasive that the representation which was made, as to the location of the building, was as therein stated, namely, within approximately 600 feet of Schuyler avenue.
The only justification for revoking this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jantausch v. Borough of Verona
...v. Hague, 106 N.J.L. 137, 147 A. 553 (E. & A. 1929); Kornylak v. Hague, 8 N.J.Misc. 481, 150 A. 669 (Sup.Ct.1930); Horwitz v. Jones, 12 N.J.Misc. 375, 171 A. 552 (Sup.Ct.1934). On the other hand, where there is no semblance of compliance with or authorization in the ordinance, the deficienc......
-
Garford Trucking, Inc. v. Hoffman, 242.
...of that argument, great reliance is placed on the cases of Freeman v. Hague, 106 N. J. Law, 137, 147 A. 553, and Horwitz v. Jones et al., 171 A. 552, 12 N. J. Misc. 375. A reading of these cases discloses that they are without application here. They merely hold, in substance, that where one......
-
Home Fuel Oil Co. v. Borough of Glen Rock
...permit. That decision was affirmed by our Court of Errors and Appeals. 116 N.J.Law, 336, 184 A. 195. And in the case of Horwitz v. Jones, 171 A. 552, 12 N.J.Misc. 375, this court, by Chief Justice Brogan, was careful to point out that it was not there contended that any building code or zon......
-
Rivera v. Hunt, L--4132
...(not officially reported); Pabst v. Ferner, 151 A. 368, 8 N.J.Misc. 621 (Sup.Ct.1930) (not officially reported); Horwitz v. Jones, 171 A. 552, 12 N.J.Misc. 375 (Sup.Ct.1934) (not officially reported). There can, of course, be no quarrel with the law as set forth in these cases. However, I d......