Case Name: M. AND G. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND HARRY J. MAX, RELATORS, v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY ET AL., RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1926-10-21
Citations: 4 N.J. Misc. 864
Docket Number: 
Parties: M. AND G. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND HARRY J. MAX, RELATORS, v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 864–865

Head Matter:
M. AND G. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND HARRY J. MAX, RELATORS, v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Decided October 21, 1926.
Before Justices Parker, Black and Campbell.
Eor the relators, Egan & Armstrong.
Eor the respondents, Thomas J. Brogan and Charles Hershenstein.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue requiring the issuance to relators of a permit to erect a group of twenty-one individual garages on Yroom street, Jersey City, in a neighborhood largely residential and within one hundred feet of a church.
The zoning ordinance of Jersey City prohibits the erection of group garages for more than five vehicles if any part of such buildings, at the entrance of the same, lies within one hundred and fifty feet of a church.
We think that such a regulation is reasonable, and there is nothing in the facts of the present case to lead to a contrary view. Hench v. East Orange, 2 N. J. Mis. R. 510; Portnoff v. Bigelow, 133 Atl. Rep. 534; Long v. Scott, Id. 767; N. J. Land Co. v. East Orange, No. 237 of the present term.
The rule to show cause is therefore discharged, with costs.