Case Name: PASSAIC WATER COMPANY, APPELLANT, 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. 714
Docket Number: 
Parties: PASSAIC WATER COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 90
Pages: 714–715

Head Matter:
PASSAIC WATER 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 axe twelve 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 and fourth points argued are, the statute upon which the order under review is based is invalid and unconstitutional because it takes the private property of the prosecutor, for public use without any compensation, denies the prosecutor the equal protection of the law; impairs the obligation of contracts, &c. All these points axe disposed of in the opinion of the court in Erie Railroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners.
“The second point argued is, the statute is unconstitutional, in so far as it deprives the Court of Chancery of its exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of the use of easements. This point is disposed of in the opinion of the court in the ease of Erie Railroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners.
“The third point argued is, the order is invalid and beyond the jurisdiction of the board, in so far as it requires the prosecutor to change the location of its water pipes, water mains,' &c., arguing that the title of the statute does not truly express the object of the legislation which it embodies. This and the other points under this head axe disposed of also 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 appellant, Humphreys & Sumner.
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—Ti-te Chancellor, Minturn, Kaliscii, White, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 7.
For reversal—Ties Chief Justice, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Hepeeniieimer, JJ. 5.