Case ID: nj-eq_65/html/0777-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Adam Eckert et al., petitioners and respondents, v. Perth Amboy and Woodbridge Railroad Company, appellant.
    1. It is not necessary that the extra hazardous condition existing at a crossing shall have been caused by the railroad company to justify the court of chancery in making the decree authorized by the act entitled “An act for the protection of railroad crossings,” approved March 16th, 1898. It is only necessary that conditions exist at a crossing at the time the petition is filed by the governing body of a municipality under said act which make it reasonable and necessary for the security of human life or the protection of the public, that gates or bars, or other reasonable provision for protecting such crossing shall be erected and maintained.
    2. The act of March 16th, 1898, is not unconstitutional under article 3 of the state constitution. It does not confer upon the judiciary powers which belong exclusively to the legislative department of the government.
    On appeal from an order advised by Yice-Chancellor Pitney.
    
      Mr. Alan II. Slrong, for the appellant.
    
      Mr. Charles C. Ilommann, for the respondents.
   Order affirmed on appeal. (See 57 Atl. Rep. 438.)

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Dixon, Garrison, Port, Garretson, Hendrickson, Pitney, Swayze, Bogert, Yredenburgh, Yoorhees, Yroom, Green — 13.

For reversal — None.