Case Name: WEST SHORE RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL., PROSECUTORS-APPELLANTS, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1934-01-05
Citations: 112 N.J.L. 83
Docket Number: 
Parties: WEST SHORE RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL., PROSECUTORS-APPELLANTS, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 112
Pages: 83–84

Head Matter:
WEST SHORE RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL., PROSECUTORS-APPELLANTS, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Submitted October 27, 1933
Decided January 5, 1934.
Por the appellants, Wall, Haight, Carey & Hartpence.
For the respondent, John A. Bernhard and Frank H. Sommer.

Opinion:
Pee Cueiam.
The question before the Supreme Court was whether, to quote the language of the opinion of that court, the board in adopting the crossing plan called "P-5 revised" instead of plan "B-2," made a determination not reasonably supported by the evidence, or that its order was unreasonable and in violation of prosecutors' rights. That question the Supreme Court decided in the negative. It was essentially a question of fact, and determined on the voluminous and to some extent contradictory evidence. The finding of the Supreme Court was substantially supported by evidence, and such a finding, on well settled rules, is controlling here.
The judgment of the Supreme Court is therefore affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chancelloe, Chief Justice, Teenchaed, Paekee, Lloyd, Case, Hehee, Peeskie, Yah Buskikk, Kays, Hetfield, Deae, Wells, Dill, JJ. 14.
For reversal — None.