Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000344 56

Image

File
Download upr000344-056.tif (image/tiff; 27.28 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000344-056
Details

Rights

This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.

Digital Provenance

Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room

Publisher

University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries

Iltattm* (Mil? Stuutrancf mb ©rust Hspmjiqtuj the Bepiat of Grandview Mditibaj thence Easterly & m g said Korth line to the dolat of beginning. Said condemnation order retention of easements heretofore gw xietiag Xtma owned by the Las Vegas 3 8. Linas crossing tract and Lots L6o atsn dj 7 t *i ooff GSrhainndrvtieevw Addition, t&e only Instrument of record is an assignment fro® the Grandview Plater Oca^any, Inc. “feu the Las- Vegae Lent and , Hater Company conveying the lines and the certificate of pub­lic conveyance, which iastrsasent was recorded «3bly w 19*& as Document Ho. 18*0.03, Clark County, Hevada records. 9 . Line located la the alley in Hock IS of Bucks Subdivision between Mesquite Avenue and Hinth Street* This alley was vacated by Order of City Camiesioners which crier was re­corded Hoveaber 11, 19^5 as Document Ho. 207333# Clark County, Bevada records. These is a mention made that retention of easements for ptblic utilities was recommended by the Planning Commission# however, the order does not recite that such ease­ments are to be retained. Therefore, the effect of the order as to the retention of existing easements is questionable. May 9* 1953 Hcarthmsterly along the center of the alley so described to the S aid Block Hi thence Sdrthwester orth line of Block 11 to the ce leventh Street; thenee along a cm? to an intersec­tion with the Hart view Tract, the same being the South line of the Replat of Grand­view Addition | rsection is approximately- 2 ota the Southeast corner of Lot 5 Replat of Grand view Addition; oag the South line of the Rep ddition to the Bast line of Te ? northerly along the last line of Tenth Street to the Hearth line of Section 35# the pane beiag-ithe Hoarth line of Repl&t Mditikm; along Horth dolnt