upr000283 194

N requires evidence to support appropriate definiteness to exipt reasnsd fiit.ndings of lent w”i’tThhe recsopuerctts toof tthhei s neSctaetses ihtayv eo f nostp ebceifeinc sfii­nd- ings and determination of facts by administrative agencies. See'Pennsylvania- R.R. Go. v. N. J. State Aviation Comm., 2 N.J. 64,65A 2d 61 (1949); Gian- francisco v. Public Service, etc., Transport, 165A 419, 11 N.J. Misc. 219'(Sup.Gt. 1933); Rojeski v. Pennington Dairy Farms, Inc., 11$ N. J.L. 335, 192A w7a4y6 D(eSputp.. Ct1o2 9 19N.3 7)J;. La.n d 27H3u,g he2s9 Av .2 d N-3. 16J. (SStuapt.eC t.High­1942), trativpei Claeuatrholryi tity iasn d thneot ftuhnec ticoonu rtosf tthoe fianddm itnhies­fraacitsse. s a Fidnoduibtn gsa sm utsot whbee thferree thfer oma dmaimnbiisgturiattyi vwehich Tahuet hmoorsitt yr eparsoocneaebdleed uapnod n pra accotriic-aelc t stlaengdala rdth eios ryt.o ?re­quire that findings of fact be sufficiently specific v uenndabelre thae recviirecwuimnsgt anccoeusr t oft o thien tpealrltiigceunltalry rceavsei ewto an administrative decision and ascertain if the J|ih faablcet s bauspiosn' fwohri chs ucthh'eo rodredre.r isT hibs asise d a anfefcoersds aar yreason- rcullues ivweh eruep,o n asr ehveireew;, itfh e sfuipnpdoirntgesd boyf efavcitd enacree. con­See 146 A.L.R. 209, et seq.’ N.' J. Bel! Tel. Co; 3v.7 6,C o7m5mAu ni2cd at7i21o,n s 7U3o1r k(e1r9s5,0 )e.t”c., 5 N. J. 354, 375, The Railroad Company rate base fixed by the Commission did not include the right of way for pipe lines and power lines at its present cost. At page 16 of its opinion, the Commission said stNo consideration is given R/W because it is over the Com­pany’s land for the Company’s use”. This is clearly erroneous if it is intended to mean that the rights of way are for the exclusive use of the Railroad Company. These rights of way stand on the same footing as the water-bearing land and the water pro­duction facilities such as wells, reservoirs and pipe lines. -40-