Town of Irvington v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Town of Irvington v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners

152 A. 921, 107 N.J.L. 191, 1930 N.J. LEXIS 287

DecidedOctober 20, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 152 A. 921 (Town of Irvington v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Town of Irvington v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners, 152 A. 921, 107 N.J.L. 191, 1930 N.J. LEXIS 287 (N.J. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

This case was one on four separate certioraris in the Supreme Court, which were consolidated there for the purpose of procedure and disposition. The opinion of the Supreme Court per curiam was written in that of Borough of Roselle Park et al. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners, Public Service Railway Company and Public Service Transportation Company. After the entry of judgment in the Supreme Court adjudging that the order of the board be affirmed and the certioraris dismissed, an appeal was taken to this court by the town of Irvington and Alice M. Stewart, prosecutors-appellants in one of the writs against the defendants heretofore mentioned.

We are of opinion that the judgment under review herein, so far as it affects the town of Irvington and Alice M. Stewart, the prosecutors-appellants, should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Ciiiee Justice, Trenohard, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Daly, Donges, Yan Buskirk, MgGlennon, Kays, Heteield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 14.

For reversal — Kone.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pee Curiam.

This case was one on four separate certioraris in the Supreme Court, which were consolidated there for the purpose of procedure and disposition. The opinion of the Supreme Court per curiam was written in that of Borough of Roselle Park et al. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners, Public Service Railway Company and Public Service Transportation Company. After the entry of judgment in the Supreme Court adjudging that the order of the board be affirmed and the certioraris dismissed, an appeal was taken to this court by the town of Irvington and Alice M. Stewart, prosecutors-appellants in one of the writs against the defendants heretofore mentioned.

We are of opinion that the judgment under review herein, so far as it affects the town of Irvington and Alice M. Stewart, the prosecutors-appellants, should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Ciiiee Justice, Trenohard, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Daly, Donges, Yan Buskirk, MgGlennon, Kays, Heteield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 14.

For reversal — Kone.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 A. 921, 107 N.J.L. 191, 1930 N.J. LEXIS 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-irvington-v-board-of-public-utility-commissioners-nj-1930.