Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1941

Brown v. Terhune

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Decided February 7, 1941 · Bodine, Bodirtb, Porter

18 A.2d 73; 125 N.J.L. 618; 1941 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 233 (Atlantic Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Geisler v. CITY COUNCIL OF CEDAR FALLS (Iowa 2009)
Whitehead Oil Co. v. City of Lincoln (Neb. 1994)
Michael B. Geisler Vs. City Council Of The City Of Cedar Falls, Iowa (Iowa 2009)
In re Markham (N.C. 1963)
Pierce v. King County (Wash. 1963)
Cox v. Wall Tp. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1956)
Roselle v. Wright (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1955)
Lionshead Lake, Inc. v. Tp. of Wayne (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1950)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Bodine, J.

The prosecutor entered into contracts for the purchase of several properties at the corner of Godwin and Sherman.avenues in the village of Eidgewood. The properties were in a business zone and prosecutor desired to build a gasoline service station thereon. This use was lawful, when he applied for his building permit and paid the necessary fee. The grant of the permit was delayed while the zoning ordi *619 nance was being amended so as to place the premises in question in a two-family zone where a permit could not be granted.

Certiorari is the appropriate remedy to test the reasonableness of the ordinance. Payne v. Borough of Seabright, 14 N. J. Mis. R. 756. Although prosecutor was not the owner of the premises he held signed contracts for the purchase thereof; this circumstance gave him sufficient authority to apply for the permit. The change in the zoning ordinance seems to bear no relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. A garage and service station are situate on Godwin avenue a short distance from prosecutor’s premises.

The action seems arbitrary and for no other purpose than to preclude a use which for seventeen years has been lawful. Eastern Boulevard v. Willaredt, 125 N. J. L. 173; affirmed, Id. 511.

The amendment to the ordinance will be set aside, and the prosecutor may have a writ of mandamus to compel the issuance of a permit.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.