Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000154 73

Image

File
Download upr000154-073.tif (image/tiff; 26.72 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000154-073
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

and power to the developments of its tcwnslte and the distrib­ution of water was oonfined to the residents of the town site with one or two exceptions which will not be considered here* A resident of an abutting real estate subdivision filed an application with the then Railroad Commission of the State of California demanding that the Bel Mar Water Company serve hi® with water and the Bailroad Commission having deter­mined that the water company m s a public utility and its facilities and supply m s sufficient, ordered it so to do* The matter went up to the California Supreme Court and the ©pinion of Justice Shaw, which I think pretty well establishes the general law on this subject, contains the following language "There can be no doubt, therefore, that the owner of a water supply may make a limited dedication of it to public use, confining the use to such territory as he sees fit. lor can there be any doubt that one owning a water supply is not compelled to dedicate all of it to public use, or that he may dedicate a part of it, only, to such use, reserving the remainder for private purposes or for private sale or disposition as he sees fit. Accordingly, our decisions have recog­nised and have repeatedly declared the right of a water oompany to make such limited dedi­cation and to decline to furnish its water to persons not within the area it has under­taken to serve, (Leavitt v. Lassen Irr. Co., 187 Cal. 92 (29 L.B.A, (H.S.) 213, 106 Pac. 404)f Thayer v, California Dev. 0©., 164 Cal. IS®, (128 Pac. 21)| Price v. Blverelde Land etc. Co., 56 Cal. 433 j Hildreth v. Monteelto Creek Water Co,, 139 Gal* 29, (72 Pac. 395)j 2 Wiel on Water-rights, 3d ed., sec. 1281j Lewis on Eminent Domain, 3d ed., seos. 254, 313.) The facts stated in the commission’s findings and opinion do not show that the Del Mar Company ever offered its water for use to the territory in which applicant Class lived, or to any per­sons other than those buying lots from the land oompany or residing within, the ’old town* sur­rounded by the territory subdivided by the land company. Its dedication of Its water, If it