Slamowitz v. Jelleme

• Citation: 130 A. 883
• Decision Date: 17 November 1925
• Docket Number: No. 248.,248.
• Parties: SLAMOWITZ et al. v. JELLEME, Inspector of Buildings, et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

130 A. 883

SLAMOWITZ et al.

v. JELLEME, Inspector of Buildings, et al.

No. 248.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Nov. 17, 1925.

Mandamus by Nathan Slamowitz and another to compel issuance of building permit by John Jelleme, Inspector of Buildings of the City of Passaic, and the Board of Adjustment thereof. On rule to show cause. Rule made absolute, to end that peremptory writ may issue.

Argued October term, 1925, before TRENCHARD, KATZENBACH, and LLOYD, JJ.

Ward & McGinnis, of Paterson, for relators. Thomas E. Duffy and Frederick S. Ranzenhofer, both of Passaic, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. A rule was issued in this case requiring the respondents to show cause why a peremptory or alternative writ of mandamus should not be awarded to compel the issuance of a building permit to the relators. Under permission granted in the rule depositions have been taken from which it appears that the relators had a contract to purchase from one Swan certain lands in the city of Passaic, and that they, with the consent of Swan, made application to the defendant Jelleme as building inspector of Passaic for a permit to erect an apartment house. The application was refused by the inspector on the ground that the relators would not be permitted to build an apartment house on the lot because of the provisions of a zoning ordinance. The application was for a two family apartment house, and the plans therefor were in the possession of the relators, but the inspector refused to examine them. Further application to the board of commissioners of the city was made, and the relators were informed that a board of adjustment was about to be created before whom they could appear. Upon the creation of this board the relators applied for a permit, and were again denied. It is apparent from the depositions taken that this refusal was based solely on the ground that to grant a permit would be in violation of a zoning ordinance forbidding the erection of apartment houses on lands located as were those of the relators.

In the defendants' brief it is sought to sustain this refusal on several grounds: (1) That the relators were not the owners of the property at the time they made application. The application, however, was made with the consent and approval of the owner, and is controlled by the case of Reimer v. Dallas (N. J. Sup.) 129 A. 390. (2) That the relators did not follow the necessary steps to get a building permit. We think the evidence discloses to the contrary.' (3) That the...