Case Name: NELROSE REALTY COMPANY, RELATOR, v. CARL R. FRANKE, INSPECTOR, ETC., TOWNSHIP OF TEANECK, DEFENDANT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1924-12-31
Citations: 3 N.J. Misc. 44
Docket Number: 
Parties: NELROSE REALTY COMPANY, RELATOR, v. CARL R. FRANKE, INSPECTOR, ETC., TOWNSHIP OF TEANECK, DEFENDANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 44–44

Head Matter:
NELROSE REALTY COMPANY, RELATOR, v. CARL R. FRANKE, INSPECTOR, ETC., TOWNSHIP OF TEANECK, DEFENDANT.
Submitted October term, 1924
Decided December 31, 1924.
Before Justices Kalisch, Black and Campbell.
For the relator, Maley Malay.
For the defendant, Fredemcic W. Mattoclis.

Opinion:
Pee Cdeiam. .
. A rule to show cause was allowed in this case directed to Carl E. Franke, inspector of buildings of the township of Teaneck, Bergen county, New Jersey, why a peremptory writ of mandamus should not be issued, commanding him to issue a permit for the erection of a building in accordance with the plans and specifications filed by the relator.
We think the facts of this case fall within the principle laid clown in the case of Ignaciunas v. Risley, 1 N. J. Adv. R. 1023; affirmed, 2 Id. 852, which case is controlling.
A peremptory writ is ordered upon paying of the legal fees.