opinion: BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. et al. v. BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD et al.
  No. 97.
  Argued March 27, 1963.
  Decided May 20, 1963
  Robert W. Oinnane, Jervis Langdon, Jr., and William L. Marbury argued the cause for appellants. With Mr. Ginnane on the briefs for the Interstate Commerce Commission, appellant in No. 99, was I. K. Hay. With Mr. Langdon on the briefs for appellants in No. 97 were Richard R. Bongarts, Robert B. Claytor, John W. Hanifin, John Henry Lewin and William C. Purnell. With Mr. Marbury on the briefs for appellants in No. 98 were Chas. R. Seal, J. Cookman Boyd, Jr., Donald Macleay, John Martin Jones, Jr., Morris Duane, Warren Price, Jr., William C. Burt and Robert M. Beckman.
  J. William Doolittle, Thomas E. Dewey and Robert G. Bleakney, Jr. argued the cause for appellees. On the brief for the Boston &'Maine Railroad et al. were Robert G. Bleakney, Jr., Hénry E. Foley and Neal Holland. On the brief for the United States were Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney-General Loevinger, Stephen J. Poliak, Robert B. Hummel, Irwin A. Seibel and John H. D. Wigger. On the brief for the New York Central Railroad Company et al. were Thomas E. Dewey, Everett I. Willis and Leo B. Connelly. On the brief for the State of New York et al. were Louis J. Lejkowitz, Attorney-General of New York, Paxton Blair, Solicitor General, Dunton F. Tynan, Assistant Solicitor General, Sidney Goldstein, Leo A. Larkin, F. A. Mulhern, Morris Handel, Samuel Mandell, Charles W. Merritt, Walter J. Myskow-ski, Arthur L. Winn, Jr. and Samuel H. Moerman.
  Together with. No. 98, Maryland Port Authority et al. v. Boston & Maine Railroad et al., and No. 99, Interstate Commerce Commission v. Boston & Maine Railroad et al., also on appeals from the same Court.
  Per Curiam.
  The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
  Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
choices: case did not arise on cert or cert not granted federal court conflict federal court conflict and to resolve important or significant question putative conflict conflict between federal court and state court state court conflict federal court confusion or uncertainty state court confusion or uncertainty federal court and state court confusion or uncertainty to resolve important or significant question to resolve question presented no reason given other reason