Keavey v. Randall
| Decision Date | 05 June 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 224.,224. |
| Parties | KEAVEY v. RANDALL, Inspector of Buildings of Town of West Hoboken, et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Mandamus by John Keavey against Charles W. Randall, Inspector of Buildings of the Town of West Hoboken, and others. On rule to show cause why a peremptory or alternative writ of mandamus should not issue. Peremptory writ awarded.
Argued February term, 1923, before KALISCH, BLACK, and KATZENBACH, JJ.
James R. Bowen, of Jersey City, for plaintiff.
Abram C. Safyer, of West Hoboken, for defendants.
This matter comes before this court on a rule to show cause why a peremptory or alternative writ of mandamus should not be issued to the inspector of buildings of the town of West Hoboken commanding him to grant to John Keavey a permit for the erection of a building on a tract of land owned by Mr. Keavey in the town of West Hoboken. The record shows that Mr. Keavey is the owner of a tract of land at the northwest corner of Palisade avenue and Malone street, in the town of West Hoboken, which has a frontage of 75 feet on Palisade avenue and a frontage of 100 feet on Malone street On December 20, 1921, Mr. Keavey made a written application to the inspector of buildings for a permit to erect on said tract of land a one-story brick building, 75 feet front and rear, and 100 feet in depth, to cost $40,000. In the application Mr. Keavey stated that the building was to be occupied as a garage. With the application for a permit complete plans and specifications were filed.
Under the ordinance of the town of West Hoboken, before any person shall erect any building or structure, he shall first apply for and obtain from the inspector of buildings a permit signed by the said inspector. A supplement to this ordinance provides that the inspector of buildings shall, without unnecessary delay, issue permits for the erection of dwelling houses and other buildings in the town of West Hoboken. Notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Keavey's application for a permit, with complete plans and specifications, was filed on December 20, 1921, no permit was issued to Mr. Keavey for upwards of four months. The evidence taken under the rule shows that the reason for this delay, as explained by the building inspector, was that the town council would not allow him to promiscuously give permits for the building of garages. His testimony was:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards & Browne Coal Co. v. City of Sioux City
...1091;Commonwealth v. Atlas, 244 Mass. 78, 138 N. E. 243;City Council of Montgomery v. West, 149 Ala. 311, 42 So. 1000;Keavey v. Randall, 122 A. 379, 1 N. J. Misc. R. 311. The fact that this ordinance was passed without proper details and specifications is eloquent evidence that the ordinanc......
-
Edwards & Browne Coal Co. v. Sioux City
... ... Post, 214 Ky. 175, 282 S.W. 1091; Com. v ... Atlas, 244 Mass. 78, 138 N.E. 243; Montgomery v ... West, 149 Ala. 311, 42 So. 1000; Keavey v ... Randall, 1 N.J. Misc. 311, 122 A. 379 ... The ... fact that this ordinance was passed without proper details ... and ... ...
-
People v. Herley
...v. State, 172 Ind. 198, 88 N. E. 62;Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 43 S. Ct. 625, 67 L. Ed. 1042, 29 A. L. R. 1446;Keavey v. Randall (N. J. Sup.) 122 A. 379, and other cases found in the brief of counsel. Counsel for the city of Highland Park cites a long list of cases which he insists s......
-
State v. Daquino, A--529
...of the plainest principles of justice. It is a power that the municipal governing body itself does not possess. Vide Keavey v. Randall, 1 N.J.Misc. 311, 122 A. 379; South Orange v. Heller, 92 N.J.Eq. 505, 113 A. 697. It is requisite that the regulation establish the terms and conditions upo......