Case ID: nj-misc_3/html/0264-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Cuela m.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FRANK B. EATON AND LILLIAN EATON, RELATORS, v. VILLAGE OF SOUTH ORANGE ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
    Submitted November 6, 1924
    Decided February 26, 1925.
    Zoning — Apartment-house—Location and Size Such as to Constitute Possible Menace to Safety — Alternative Writ to Permit Framing of Pleadings for Presentation of Matters on Appeal Allowed.
    On rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue.
    Before Justices Kalisoh, Black and Campbell.
    Por the relators, Howe & Davis.
    
    Eor the defendants, Rilcer & Rilcer.
    
   Pee Cuela m.

This matter is before the court upon a rule to' show cause why an alternative or peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue requiring the building inspector of South Orange to issue to relators a permit to erect a four-story brick apartment-house to accommodate thirty-six (36) families, at the comer of South Orange avenue and Prospect street.

The matters presented upon this rule to show c^use are identical with those prosecuted in Michel v. South Orange, No. 247, of this term, with the exception that in that case the proposed building was three stories in height, designed to house twenty-seven (27) families, while here the height is four stories and the capacity thirty-six (36) families. Eor the reasons stated in the Michel case an alternative writ of mandamus will be allowed for the purpose that the pleadings may be so framed as to present the matters involved upon appeal.

Let such rule be entered.