Case ID: nj-misc_5/html/0180-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, EX REL. THE BILT-WEL COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RELATOR, v. THOMAS J. DOWLING, INSPECTOR OF THE BUILDING AND PLUMBING DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF ORANGE, NEW JERSEY, AND THE CITY OF ORANGE, ESSEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENTS.
    Argued October 5, 1926
    Decided January 25, 1927.
    Zoning — Apartment-House in Residence District — Case Within Ignaciunas v. Risley, Except That Appeal to Board of Adjustment Must First be Taken — That Board Now Acts Judicially —Constitutionality of Act Giving Board Judicial Powers Raised but Held Not to Call For Extended Discussion.
    On rule to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue.
    Before Justices Parker, Black and Campbell.
    Por the relator, John J. McCloskey.
    
    Por the respondents, Spaulding Fraser.
    
   Per Curiam.

This is a zoning case. Relator wishes to build an apartment-house on the west side of Scotland road, adjoining the South Orange line. The district is zoned “Residential A,” and by the ordinance such a building as that now projected is forbidden.

The case would he one for the same disposition as the line of cases typified in Ignaciunas v. Risley, 98 N. J. L. 712, except for the statute of 1926 (Pamph. L., p. 526), and the stipulated fact that there is a board of zoning adjustment. In that situation we deem it our duty to follow the decision of the Chief Justice in Chancellor Development Corp. v. Senior, 134 Atl. Rep. 337; 4 N. J. Mis. R. 633; and this results in a discharge of the present rule, leaving it open to relator to appeal to the board and to review its decision, if adverse, by certiorari. As intimated in the Chancellor ease, the board is to act judicially, on a lawful ascertainment of facts.

Relator has presented a supplemental brief urging, among other things, that the act of 1926 is unconstitutional as cutting off a jury trial, that the Chancellor case is not controlling, and that the right of appeal does not bar an application for mandamus. We have considered these matters and such others as are set out in the brief, but do not think they call for extended discussion.

The rule to show cause will be discharged.