From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

De Mott Homes at Salem, Inc. v. City of Margate City

Court of Errors and Appeals
Feb 19, 1948
57 A.2d 388 (N.J. 1948)

Summary

holding that a municipality could not bar two family homes in a seashore area

Summary of this case from Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of Mount Laurel

Opinion

Argued February 5, 1948 —

Decided February 19, 1948.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported at 136 N.J.L. 330.

For the appellant, Winne Banta ( Walter G. Winne, of counsel).

For the respondents, Perskie Perskie ( Joseph B. Perskie, of counsel).


The judgment under review herein is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Eastwood in the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, BODINE, DONGES, WACHENFELD, BURLING, WELLS, DILL, FREUND, McLEAN, SCHETTINO, JJ. 10.

For reversal — THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HEHER, JJ. 2.


Summaries of

De Mott Homes at Salem, Inc. v. City of Margate City

Court of Errors and Appeals
Feb 19, 1948
57 A.2d 388 (N.J. 1948)

holding that a municipality could not bar two family homes in a seashore area

Summary of this case from Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of Mount Laurel
Case details for

De Mott Homes at Salem, Inc. v. City of Margate City

Case Details

Full title:THE DE MOTT HOMES AT SALEM, INC., ETC., RESPONDENT, v. CITY OF MARGATE…

Court:Court of Errors and Appeals

Date published: Feb 19, 1948

Citations

57 A.2d 388 (N.J. 1948)
57 A.2d 388

Citing Cases

Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of Mount Laurel

The judiciary has at the same time invalidated or modified zoning ordinances that violated constitutional…

Lionshead Lake, Inc., v. Tp. of Wayne

"* * * The ordinance, as amended, is a restriction upon the future use of the property in question. If…