From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Allen v. Paterson

Court of Errors and Appeals
Apr 17, 1924
124 A. 924 (N.J. 1924)

Opinion

Submitted December 10, 1923 —

Decided April 17, 1924.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 98 N.J.L. 661.

For the appellant, Randal B. Lewis.

For the respondents, Harry J. Breen and Rosencrans Rosencrans.

For the city of Paterson, Edward F. Merrey.


The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court delivered by Mr. Justice Minturn, except that we express no opinion upon that part of the Supreme Court's deliverance which deals with the validity of any part of the zoning ordinance of the city of Paterson, because no reason was filed in the Supreme Court for setting aside the resolution under review, which raised that question.

For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, BLACK, KATZENBACH, CAMPBELL, WHITE, GARDNER, VAN BUSKIRK, CLARK, JJ. 11.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

Allen v. Paterson

Court of Errors and Appeals
Apr 17, 1924
124 A. 924 (N.J. 1924)
Case details for

Allen v. Paterson

Case Details

Full title:HENRY A. ALLEN, APPELLANT, v. CITY OF PATERSON ET AL., RESPONDENTS

Court:Court of Errors and Appeals

Date published: Apr 17, 1924

Citations

124 A. 924 (N.J. 1924)
99 N.J.L. 532

Citing Cases

Lutz v. Kaltenbach

This court, in H. Krumgold Sons v. Jersey City, ante, p. 170, held: "Where a zoning ordinance is ineffective…

D. Giordano Sons v. Ciliberti

(Italics ours) * * * `And in Losick v. Binda, (102 N.J.L., p. 157), 130 Atl. 537 we further held that boards,…