Gold v. Bldg. Com. of Warren Boro., 5 A.2d 367 (Pa. 1939). · Go Syfert
Search
Gold v. Bldg. Com. of Warren Boro., 5 A.2d 367 (Pa. 1939). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
48 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: R.A. Bethke v. City of Philadelphia (pacommwct, 2025-07-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1940 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1940 1983 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) R.A. Bethke v. City of Philadelphia (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 2025 · confidence medium
Comm. of Warren Borough, 5 A.2d 367, 367 (Pa. 1939) (recognizing mandamus court’s discretion to deny building permit to applicant where borough council contemporaneously passed zoning ordinance prohibiting gasoline stations in the area); D.N.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Merz v. Merz White Way Tours
pactcomplphilad · 1956 · confidence medium
Judgment shall not be entered without prior.notice to all parties unless the exigency of the case is such as to require action before notice, in which event notice shall be given as soon as possible.” As a general principle: “Whether mandamus shall issue is a matter for the exercise of a sound discretion by the court applied to; the writ is not one of absolute right: (cases cited)": Gold v. Building Committee of Warren Borough, 334 Pa. 10, 11 (1939).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Logan v. Bickel (2×)
pactcompldelawa · 1956 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Gold v. Building Committee of Warren Borough, 334 Pa. 10 , 5 A. 2d 367 ; A. N. “Ab” Young Zoning Case, 360 Pa. 429 , 61 A. 2d 839 ; Mutual Supply Company Appeal, 366 Pa. 424 , 77 A. 2d 612 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gold, Appellant,
v.
Building Committee of Warren Borough Et Al.
Appeal, 91.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Mar 21, 1939.
5 A.2d 367
1939 Pa. LEXIS 588
S. Y. Rossiter , with him C. Henry Nicholson , for appellant. J. H. Alexander , with him S. D. Blackman and W. S. Clark , for appellee.
Schaffer, Maxey, Drew, Linn, Stern, Barnes.
Cited by 28 opinions  |  Published

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Schaffer,

Plaintiff appeals from the refusal of the court below to award a writ of mandamus against the building committee of Warren Borough, compelling them to approve an application for a permit enabling him to erect a gasoline station on a lot in the borough.

Plaintiff was informed, when he took the matter up with the borough authorities, that a zoning ordinance, placing the lot in a restricted area, had passed two of the three readings required in the borough council. It passed council on the day he applied for the mandamus and was approved and became effective the following day. While he obtained a blank application for the permit from the clerk of council, he did not have it approved by the members of the building committee, as was required. The fact is he interviewed only one member of the committee. He had made no improvements on the lot or any expenditures in connection therewith.

Whether mandamus shall issue is a matter for the exercise of a sound discretion by the court applied to; the writ is not one of absolute right: Reading v. Com., 11 Pa. 196; Achuff’s Appeal, 12 Pa. Superior Ct. 573, 38 C. J. 546, 18 R. C. L. 137.

Under such a situation as here existed, a zoning ordinance affecting the land, on passage through the borough council when the application was made for the permit to erect a structure which the ordinance inhibited, which ordinance was finally adopted before the court acted on the petition for the mandamus, the court properly exercised its discretion in refusing the mandamus: Rohrs v. Zabriskie, 102 N. J. L. 473, 133 A. 65; Koplin v. South Orange, 6 N. J. Misc. 413, 142 A. 235; Ware v. Wichita, 113 Kan. 153, 214 Pac. 99; State ex rel. Hayes v. New Orleans, 154 La. 289, 97 So. 446; State ex rel. v. Hough [*12] ton, 153 Minn. 518, 190 N. W. 979; Spector v. Building Inspector of Milton, 250 Mass. 63, 145 N. E. 265; In Re Cherry, 201 App. Div. 856, 193 N. Y. S. 57, aff’d 234 N. Y. 607, 138 N. E. 465; Gulf Ref. Co. v. McKernan, 179 N. C. 314, 102 S. E. 505, 40 A. L. R. 934.

Nothing said in Herskovits v. Irwin, 299 Pa. 155, 149 A. 195, in any way conflicts with this ruling. There the applicant had expended substantial sums in reliance on a preliminary permit issued to him. It was held that an attempt to revoke this permit could not be sustained.

The court properly dismissed the proceeding.

Order affirmed at appellant’s cost.