Case Name: JACOB MEYER ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS ET AL., RESPONDENTS; FULLER'S EXPRESS COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS ET AL., RESPONDENTS; MORRIS & COMPANY, APPELLANTS, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS ET AL., RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1917-10-11
Citations: 90 N.J.L. 694
Docket Number: 
Parties: JACOB MEYER ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS ET AL., RESPONDENTS. FULLER’S EXPRESS COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS ET AL., RESPONDENTS. MORRIS & COMPANY, APPELLANTS, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 90
Pages: 694–695

Head Matter:
JACOB MEYER ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS ET AL., RESPONDENTS. FULLER’S EXPRESS COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS ET AL., RESPONDENTS. MORRIS & COMPANY, APPELLANTS, 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 each of these cases there are eight reasons presented to the court for setting aside the order made by the board of public utility commissioners. They are identical with the 'reasons presented in the case of D. Fullerton & Company, prosecutor, except in the case of Fuller’s Express'Company, prosecutor, presents an additional reason, viz., the order directing changes, relocation, &c., is invalid because it imposes a burden upon the interstate trafile of the prosecutor, interferes with and impairs its ability to- perform its duty, as a common carrier of such interstate traffic. These cases were argued orally before the court by Mr. Gourley. All the points in these cases are disposed of in the opinion of the court in the case of Erie' Railroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners. The order under review will be affirmed, with costs.”
For the appellants, William B. Gourley.
For the respondents, L. Edward Herrmann and Frank H. Sommer.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance—The Chancellor, Minturn, Kaltsck. White, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 7.
For reversal—The Ghiee Justice, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Heppeniieimer, JJ. 5.