Case Name: THE STATE, EX REL. TREAT INVESTMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED, RELATOR, v. FREDERICK BIGELOW, SUPERINTENDENT OF BUILDINGS OF THE CITY OF NEWARK, AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1925-11-17
Citations: 3 N.J. Misc. 1167
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE STATE, EX REL. TREAT INVESTMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED, RELATOR, v. FREDERICK BIGELOW, SUPERINTENDENT OF BUILDINGS OF THE CITY OF NEWARK, AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 1167–1168

Head Matter:
THE STATE, EX REL. TREAT INVESTMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED, RELATOR, v. FREDERICK BIGELOW, SUPERINTENDENT OF BUILDINGS OF THE CITY OF NEWARK, AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Argued October 7, 1925
Decided November 17, 1925.
Before Justices Then chard, Katzenbach and Lloyd.
For the relator, Isadore H. Colion.
For the respondents, Jerome T. Conglalon and Charles M. Myers.-

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This case is before us on a rule directed to Frederick Bigelow, superintendent of buildings of Newark, to show cause why a, peremptory or alternative writ of mandamus should not issue requiring the issuance of a permit to the relator for the erection of a building containing stores and dwellings on Wainwright street in that city. The parties have stipulated the facts, and from them it appears that the relator is the owner of a plot of land on Wainwright street containing ñfty-nine and ten hundredths feet in front and one hundred feet'in depth; that an application was made to the respondent, superintendent of buildings, for a permit, and the legal fee tendered therefor. The application was refused on the ground that the proposed building was forbidden by a zoning ordinance of the city. The relator then appealed to the board of adjustment of the city, a board created by ordinance in pursuance of chapter 146 of the laws of 1924. After hearing, the board of adjustment affirmed the decision of the superintendent of buildings and itself°-refused to grant the permit. On this state of facts it is apparent that the refusal of the building inspector was not justified: The construction applied for conies clearly within the decision of the Court of Errors and Appeals in the case of Ignaciunas v. Risley, 2 N. J. Adv. R. 852, and that these rights could not be impaired through establishment of a board of adjustment is established by the decision of the same court in the case of Losick v. Binda, No. 102, May term, 1925.
The relator is entitled to a peremptory writ of mandamus and the same is awarded.