Case ID: njl_100/html/0401-01.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

G. M. S. HOLDING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT, v. FRANK HAGUE, JOHN SAUL, A. HARRY MOORE, MICHAEL I. FAGEN AND WILLIAM B. QUINN, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY, AND JOHN SAUL, SUPERINTENDENT OF BUILDINGS OF JERSEY CITY, APPELLANTS.
    Submitted June 5, 1924
    Decided October 20, 1924.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam, was filed:
    “This ease is before the court on a demurrer to an alternative writ of mandamus allowed upon an application of the relator to compel the issuance to it of a building permit by tlie authorities of the city of Jersey City.
    “The writ alleges, among other things, that the relator is the owner of land in Jersey City; that the city has adopted an ordinance whereby such land was zoned for business purposes; that the relator applied for a permit to erect a garage thereon in accordance with the building code, which application was refused.
    “These facts are admitted by the demurrer which sets forth that the city is not bound to grant the permit, because of an ordinance pased March 21st, 1922, pursuant to the act, chapter 229 of laws of 1920.
    “Looking at the ordinance we fail to perceive any reason why the permit should not he granted. The property seems to he zoned for business purposes and is covered by section 3 and its provisions do not exclude, the building in question. Paiagrapli 8 of section 3 does not apply to the relator because the garage is not within one hundred and fifty feet of any institution enumerated, nor are any of the institutions enumerated within the intersecting streets on which relator’s property exists.
    “The demurrer will he overruled and judgment given for the relator, with costs, and a peremptory writ of mandamus awarded.”
    
      For the appellants, Thomas J. Brogan.
    
    For the respondent, Gross & Gross.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should he affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Minturn, Kalis ch, Black, Katzexbach, Lloyd, White, Gardner, Van Buskirk, Clark, McGlennon, Kays, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.