Case Name: THE SIXTY-SEVEN SOUTH MUNN, INCORPORATED, PROSECUTOR, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS OF NEW JERSEY ET AL., DEFENDANTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1929-01-30
Citations: 7 N.J. Misc. 181
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE SIXTY-SEVEN SOUTH MUNN, INCORPORATED, PROSECUTOR, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS OF NEW JERSEY ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 181–181

Head Matter:
THE SIXTY-SEVEN SOUTH MUNN, INCORPORATED, PROSECUTOR, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS OF NEW JERSEY ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Argued January 17, 1929
Decided January 30, 1929.
Before Justices Mtntuen, Black and Campbell.
For the prosecutor, Osborne, Cornish & Scheck and Merrilt Lane.
For the defendants, J. 0. Bigelow and William, H. Speer.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
A rule to show cause was allowed in this case, why a writ of certiorari should not issue to review an order made by the public utility commissioners, dated December 13th, 1928. Our reading of the record and a consideration of the oral argument made at the hearing lead us to the conclusion, that a writ of certiorari should be allowed to review such order.
The writ of certiorari is, therefore, allowed.