Case Name: PLAZA APARTMENT HOTEL CORPORATION, RESPONDENT, v. FRANK HAGUE, JOHN SAUL, A. HARRY MOORE, MICHAEL I. FAGEN AND WILLIAM B. QUINN, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY, AND JOHN SAUL, SUPERINTENDENT OF BUILDINGS OF JERSEY CITY, APPELLANTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1924-10-20
Citations: 100 N.J.L. 410
Docket Number: 
Parties: PLAZA APARTMENT HOTEL CORPORATION, RESPONDENT, v. FRANK HAGUE, JOHN SAUL, A. HARRY MOORE, MICHAEL I. FAGEN AND WILLIAM B. QUINN, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY, AND JOHN SAUL, SUPERINTENDENT OF BUILDINGS OF JERSEY CITY, APPELLANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 100
Pages: 410–411

Head Matter:
PLAZA APARTMENT HOTEL CORPORATION, RESPONDENT, v. FRANK HAGUE, JOHN SAUL, A. HARRY MOORE, MICHAEL I. FAGEN AND WILLIAM B. QUINN, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY, AND JOHN SAUL, SUPERINTENDENT OF BUILDINGS OF JERSEY CITY, APPELLANTS.
Submitted June 5, 1924
Decided October 20, 1924.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
“This ease comes before the court on a demurrer to an alternative writ of mandamus.
“The relator is the owner of property, on which are five brick five-story • buildings, on the westerly side of Hudson county boulevard. It applied for a building permit to alter its property, so that stores may be erected therein, which ap plication was refused for the reason that the city ordinance zoned this property as a residential zone from which stores were excluded.
“It appears that the ordinance in question is founded upon chapter 229 of Pamph. L. 1920.
“We think that the decision o£ this case,, so far as this court is concerned, is controlled by Ignaciunas v. Risley (Supreme Court), 98 N. J. L. 712, and under the authority thereof a peremptory writ of mandamus should issue.
“The demurrer will be overruled and judgment given for the relator, with costs, and a peremptory writ of mandamus awarded.”
For the appellants, Thomas J. Brogan.
For the respondent, Gross & Gross.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chtee Justice, Parker, Minturn, Kali,sen:, Black, Katzenbach, Lloyd, White, Gardner, Van Biiskirk, Clark, McGlennon, Kays, JJ. 14.
For reversal, — Kone.