
    Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Appellant, v. The Public Service Commission.
    
      Public Service Commission — Appeals — Beturri of record for more definite evidence.
    
    In an appeal from an order of the Public Service Commission, eliminating a grade crossing, where it appears desirable to the court that more definite evidence be furnished with reference to the width of the highway at the place where the railroad tracks cross it, and also with respect to the location of the piers of the railroad bridge in relation to the lines of the highway, the record will be returned to the commission in order that additional evidence may be taken bearing on the subject.
    Argued October 25, 1922.
    Appeal, No. 22, March T., 1922, by Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, from order of the Public Service Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Complaint Docket, No. 2901, in the matter of the investigation by the commission on its own motion of dangerous condition of crossing below grade, in the Borough of Duryea, Luzerne County.
    Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
    Record remanded.
    Investigation by the commission, on it's own motion, of the condition of a crossing, below grade, at a point where Main Street in the Borough of Duryea, Luzerne County, and the tracks of the Wilkes-Barre Railway Company, located thereon, cross by means of a subway, the tracks and right-of-way of Lehigh Yalley Railway Company.
    
      December 14, 1922:
    From the record it appeared that the commission instituted, upon its own motion, an inquiry into the condition of the crossing in question, and having declared the subway dangerous, ordered the alteration of the same, at a total cost of $82,000, of which the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company was directed to pay $65,000. The Lehigh Valley Railroad Company appealed.
    
      Error assigned, among others, was the order of the commission.
    
      Ralph J. Baker, and with him Karl E. Richards, for appellant.
    
      John Fox Weiss, Assistant Counsel, and with him Frank M. Hunter, Counsel, for Public Service Commission.
   Per Curiam,

It appears desirable from an examination of the record in this case that more definite evidence be furnished with reference to the width of the highway at the place where the appellant’s road crosses it; and also with respect to the location of the piers of the appellant’s bridge in relation to the ofitside lines of the highway. The record is therefore returned to the commission in order that evidence may be taken bearing on the subject referred to.  