Case Name: LOUIS LANGHEINZ, RELATOR, v. WILLIAM T. KALTENBACH, BUILDING INSPECTOR OF THE CITY OF ELIZABETH, DEFENDANT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1925-06-03
Citations: 3 N.J. Misc. 659
Docket Number: 
Parties: LOUIS LANGHEINZ, RELATOR, v. WILLIAM T. KALTENBACH, BUILDING INSPECTOR OF THE CITY OF ELIZABETH, DEFENDANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 659–660

Head Matter:
LOUIS LANGHEINZ, RELATOR, v. WILLIAM T. KALTENBACH, BUILDING INSPECTOR OF THE CITY OF ELIZABETH, DEFENDANT.
Argued May 5, 1925
Decided June 3, 1925.
Before Justices Trunchaed, Katzknbach and Lloyd.
For the relator, FHa-mler, fítamler & Koesiler.
For the defendant, Joseph T. Hague.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is a. rule to show .cause why a writ of mandamus should not- issue- commanding William T. Kaltenbach, build-, ing inspector of .the city -of Elizabeth,, to issue to the relator a permit to. .erect a two and a half story brick building for a drug store- and.'dwelling upon his lot on the northwest corner of Elmota and .Jersey avenue, and known as No.-130 Elmora avenue, in the city of Elizabeth, New Jersey.
. Our examination of the.record presented, and a careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, leads us to the conclusion -that- the present case- is controlled, by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union County Development Co. v. Kaltenbach, 3 N. J. Mis. R. 341, and. Falco v. Kaltenbach, 3 Id. 333.
As all the facts are before us, a peremptory writ will be awarded, with privilege of applying for an order molding the pleadings if an appeal is desired.