Evening star., 1925-11-03

In view of the action OF the District
Supreme Court in upholding the con-
stitutionality of the local zoning law
much interest has been aroused among
Washington property owners in the
blow handed the New Jersey zoning
statute by the Court of Errors and
Appeals Of that State.
The opinions of the court here and
in New Jersey are widely at variance.
The District court held that the mu-
niCIpal authorities have ample right.
under their police powers, so to re-
strict the nature of buildings on GER
tain lots as to insure the public con-
venience, health and safety of resi-
dents in the locality, and expressed
the opinion that the zoning regula-
ttionS We're designed for this purpose.
THE New Jersey court, however, has
ruled that so long as a person does
not erect on his lot a building which
is manifestly q public nuisance or
menace to the health or safety of the
public he has a right to erect any
kind Of structure he desires.
Decision Here Appealed
The decision of the District Supreme
Court was handed down In the case
of Mrs. Annie Sherman, who wished
to remodel several residences on Co
lumbia road for business purposes.
She has appealed from the decision
and this appeal is now pending. In
New Jersey, however, the decision was
final, having been rendered by the
court of last resort IN that State.
A review of the New Jersey zoning
Squabble is contained in the following
article published in the New York
Times:
"Since the Court of Errors and Ap-
peals, the court of final resort in New
Jersey, made its deliverance upon the
much agitated subject of zoning regu-
lations, the communities of the State
have regarded their zoning system as
having been irreclaimably cast into the
scrap heap. Chief Justice William S.
Gummere had given the Zoners some
hope that, on a review of the case be-
fore the full bench, the overturning
rulings of the Supreme Court justices,
dealing with Independent cases in their
several districts, might be reversed.
But when the decision of the Court of
Errors, affirming all the justices had
done, came down, it was seen to have
been made and its text prepared by
MIR. Gummere.
Cannot Bind Buyer.
The courts ruling was made up
pretty much along the lines the as
Soclate justice had laid down. The
rlght Of man to put upon his lot any
building that is not a legal nuisance
or menace to the health or safety
OF the community was reasserted, and
the Chief Justice ran in one pregnant
point that had not been so sharply
stated in the discussions before. He
said that the purchase OF a piece of
property and the erection of a build
ing upon 1t did not give the purchaser
the right to say what kind of struc-
ture some future purchaser must put
on nearby site. The buyer takes
the chances in the buying and is only
| unfortunate if he loses in the game.
The Zoners are finding a slim hope
of coming out whole yet in the fact
that the court did not rule upon the
right of the State to enact zoning
law. The decision is that the Nutley
zoning law, which is type of those
prevailing elsewhere, is not conform
| able with the right of a property
| owner to make any harmless use he
| pleases of his property. But the law
! yers have thus far found it impossible
| to frame a State law that will not
run somewhere against some feature
OF the courts rulings. and express the