Case Name: LOUIS SOSNOW AND HYMAN ADELMAN, RELATORS, v. ALBERT E. PANCOAST, BUILDING INSPECTOR OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MAPLEWOOD, AND THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF MAPLEWOOD, RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1928-05-15
Citations: 6 N.J. Misc. 507
Docket Number: 
Parties: LOUIS SOSNOW AND HYMAN ADELMAN, RELATORS, v. ALBERT E. PANCOAST, BUILDING INSPECTOR OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MAPLEWOOD, AND THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF MAPLEWOOD, RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 507–508

Head Matter:
LOUIS SOSNOW AND HYMAN ADELMAN, RELATORS, v. ALBERT E. PANCOAST, BUILDING INSPECTOR OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MAPLEWOOD, AND THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF MAPLEWOOD, RESPONDENTS.
Submitted June 3, 1927
Decided May 15, 1928.
Before Justices Trenchard, Kalisch and Katzenbach.
For the relators, Merritt Lane.
For the respondents, Samuel D. Williams and J. Harry Henegan.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The relators applied to the building inspector of the township of Maplewood for a permit for the erection of stores upon a property owned by them which is a triangular piece of ground formed by the intersection of Revere avenue and Concord avenue in the township of Maplewood. The building inspector refused to grant the permit upon the ground (which is true in point of fact) that the erection of stores upon the property of the relators would be in violation of the zoning ordinance of the township which zoned the property in question of the relators as a single family residence district.
On January 22d, 1927, the relators obtained this rule to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue commanding the building inspector and the township committee of the township of Maplewood to issue such permit.
We think that the writ must be denied.
We believe that the factual situation which the record discloses brings this ease within our decision in Koplin v. Village of South Orange, 6 N. J. Mis. R. 489.
The result is that the rule to show cause in the present case will be discharged and the writ denied accordingly.
Having reached the conclusion stated, we deem it important to all parties in interest to announce it promptly, and we do so in this somewhat informal manner in order to enable the relators to avail themselves of the earliest possible opportunity for a review, if a review is desired. And if a review is desired, relators are hereby given permission to enter a rule allowing and directing the molding of the pleadings so as to permit of such review.