Case Name: MORRIS BOUER, APPELLANT, v. MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF JERSEY CITY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND EDWARD SPOERER, SUPERINTENDENT OF BUILDINGS, RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1929-05-20
Citations: 106 N.J.L. 557
Docket Number: 
Parties: MORRIS BOUER, APPELLANT, v. MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF JERSEY CITY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND EDWARD SPOERER, SUPERINTENDENT OF BUILDINGS, RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 106
Pages: 557–558

Head Matter:
MORRIS BOUER, APPELLANT, v. MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF JERSEY CITY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND EDWARD SPOERER, SUPERINTENDENT OF BUILDINGS, RESPONDENTS.
Submitted October 26, 1928
Decided May 20, 1929.
“On June 24th, 1927, the relator filed with the Building Department of the city of Jersey City, an application for permission to erect a four-story brick building containing five stores and twenty-eight apartments on a plot of land situate at the northwesterly corner of Audubon avenue and Hudson county boulevard in Jersey City, of which said land the relator was the equitable owner. The application was heard by the mayor and aldermen of Jersey City and was denied because it would increase the fire hazard and because in point of fact the zoning ordinance of Jersey City zones the land in question as a residential district in which no stores are permitted.
“Thereafter, on September 20th, 1927, the relator obtained this rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue commanding and enjoining the mayor and aldermen of Jersey City and the superintendent of buildings to grant the permit in question.
“We think that the permit cannot be granted.
“The essential factual situation of this ease brings it within our decision in Koplin v. Village of South Orange, 6 N. J. Mis. R. 489. The result is that the rule to show cause in the present case will be discharged and the writ of mandamus denied accordingly.
“Having reached the conclusion stated, we deem it important to all parties in interest to announce it promptly, and do so in this somewhat informal manner in order to enable relator to avail himself of the earliest possible opportunity for review, if a review is desired. And if a review is desired, the relator is hereby given permission to enter a rule allowing and directing the molding of the pleadings so as to permit of such review.”
For the appellant, Mark A. Sullivan.
For the respondents, Thomas J. Brogan and Charles Herschenstein.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — -The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Black, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Yan Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, JJ. 12.
For reversal — None.