Case ID: njl_90/html/0677-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

D. FULLERTON & COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
    Argued January 4, 1917
    Decided October 11, 1917.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
    
      “In this case there'are eight reasons presented to the court for setting aside the order made by the board of public utility commissioners. They are, however, argued under four points in prosecutor’s brief.
    “The first point argued is that the order, if construed to require prosecutor to make changes in its building necessary to have the same conform to the side track of the Erie railroad, when reconstructed, is invalid, because the prosecutor is not a public utility and the board has no power to order it to make such changes.
    “The second point argued is that the order, if construed to require the prosecutor at its own expense to reconstruct the existing side track, it is without the jurisdiction of the board. The work commanded to be done by the order in altering the crossing is specifically (a) the changing of the highways and (5) the reconstruction of the railroad.
    “The third point' argued is, the order under review takes the private property of the prosecutor for public use, without just or any compensation, and takes the property of the prosecutor for private use of other companies.
    “The fourth point argued is the order under review takes the property of the prosecutor without due process of law and deprives the prosecutor of the equal protection of the.law. All these points are disposed of in the opinion of the court in the case of Erie Eailroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners.
    “The order under review •will be affirmed, with costs.”
    For the appellant, Hudson & Joelson.
    
    For the respondents, L. Edward Herrmann and Frank H. Sommer.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance—Tub Chancellor, Minturn, Kaltscit, White, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 7.

For reversal—The Chief Justice, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Heppenheimer, JJ. 5.