Case Name: EASTERN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS ET AL., RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1915-03-01
Citations: 87 N.J.L. 318
Docket Number: 
Parties: EASTERN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 87
Pages: 318–319

Head Matter:
EASTERN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Argued November 27, 1914—
Decided March 1, 1915.
On appeal from the Supreme Court.
For the purpose of extending its development within the territory which it served, the Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company obtained an ordinance from the board of chosen freeholders of the county of Cape May designating certain highways within the county to be occupied by it. It also obtained a similar ordinance from the borough of Avalon, in the county of Cape May. These ordinances were duly presented to the Board of Public Utility Commissioners for its approval. The board refused to approve the application and thereupon the company obtained a .writ of certiorari to review the board’s decision, and a rule to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue to compel approval of the company’s application.
By agreement both matters were argued together before the Supreme Court and thereafter an opinion was filed in that court leading to a denial of the application for a mandamus, and a per curiam leading to the dismissal of the writ of certiorari. The per curiam is as follows:
“The questions argued in this cause are identical with those urged in State, ex rel. the prosecutor of this writ, against the same defendant for the allowance of a mandamus, decided at this term, and for the reason there given this writ will be dismissed. In disposing of this cause on the record presented, we do not intend it to be understood that we approve the review of such an order as this by certiorari, and the prosecutor apparently was in doubt because it undertook to secure the effective remedy by mandamus. Writ dismissed with costs.”
Eor the appellant, McCarter & English and James Collins Jones.
Eor the respondents, Frank H. Sommer.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment of the court below will be affirmed for the reasons stated in its per curiam.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trench art), Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Bogert, Yrbdbnburgii, JJ. 9.
For reversal—None.