Case Name: FRANK B. EATON AND LILLIAN EATON, RELATORS, v. VILLAGE OF SOUTH ORANGE ET AL., DEFENDANTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1925-02-26
Citations: 3 N.J. Misc. 264
Docket Number: 
Parties: FRANK B. EATON AND LILLIAN EATON, RELATORS, v. VILLAGE OF SOUTH ORANGE ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 264–264

Head Matter:
FRANK B. EATON AND LILLIAN EATON, RELATORS, v. VILLAGE OF SOUTH ORANGE ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Submitted November 6, 1924
Decided February 26, 1925.
Before Justices Kalisoh, Black and Campbell.
Por the relators, Howe & Davis.
Eor the defendants, Rilcer & Rilcer.

Opinion:
Pee Cuela m.
This matter is before the court upon a rule to' show cause why an alternative or peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue requiring the building inspector of South Orange to issue to relators a permit to erect a four-story brick apartment-house to accommodate thirty-six (36) families, at the comer of South Orange avenue and Prospect street.
The matters presented upon this rule to show c^use are identical with those prosecuted in Michel v. South Orange, No. 247, of this term, with the exception that in that case the proposed building was three stories in height, designed to house twenty-seven (27) families, while here the height is four stories and the capacity thirty-six (36) families. Eor the reasons stated in the Michel case an alternative writ of mandamus will be allowed for the purpose that the pleadings may be so framed as to present the matters involved upon appeal.
Let such rule be entered.