Case ID: nj-misc_3/html/0659-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LOUIS LANGHEINZ, RELATOR, v. WILLIAM T. KALTENBACH, BUILDING INSPECTOR OF THE CITY OF ELIZABETH, DEFENDANT.
    Argued May 5, 1925
    Decided June 3, 1925.
    Municipalities — Zoning — Stores in Residential District — Case Controlled by Union County Dev. Co. v. Kaltenbach, 3 N. J. Mis. R. 341.
    On rule to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue.
    Before Justices Trunchaed, Katzknbach and Lloyd.
    For the relator, FHa-mler, fítamler & Koesiler.
    
    For the defendant, Joseph T. Hague.
    
   Per Curiam.

This is a. rule to show .cause why a writ of mandamus should not- issue- commanding William T. Kaltenbach, build-, ing inspector of .the city -of Elizabeth,, to issue to the relator a permit to. .erect a two and a half story brick building for a drug store- and.'dwelling upon his lot on the northwest corner of Elmota and .Jersey avenue, and known as No.-130 Elmora avenue, in the city of Elizabeth, New Jersey.

. Our examination of the.record presented, and a careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, leads us to the conclusion -that- the present case- is controlled, by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union County Development Co. v. Kaltenbach, 3 N. J. Mis. R. 341, and. Falco v. Kaltenbach, 3 Id. 333.

As all the facts are before us, a peremptory writ will be awarded, with privilege of applying for an order molding the pleadings if an appeal is desired.