Image
Copyright & Fair-use Agreement
UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
Read more about our reproduction and use policy.
I agree.Information
Digital ID
Permalink
Details
More Info
Rights
Digital Provenance
Publisher
Transcription
Thereafter and on November 4, 1935, pursuant to the said proclamation, the Board read for the first time the bond ordinance providing for the issuance of $250,000.00 in bonds for the construction of such plant and it was duly published according to law and thereafter and on December 4th, 1935, the said ordinance was read for the second time and passed. On December 5, 1935, C. C. Ronnow brought an action against the city, the Mayor and individual commissioners, the complaint of which contained three separate and distinct causes of action, it alleging as follows: (1) That the city did not have the power and the charter was too narrow in scope to permit the entry by the city into the power business; (2) That the ordinance did not conform to the proclamation, and (3) That the proposed bonds did not conform in maturity dates to the statutes in such cases made and provided. Thereafter the city interposed demurrers to the three respective causes of action and the matter came on before the Court, the honorable J. M. Lockhart presiding, and it was argued before the Court on the 2nd and 3rd days of January, 1936, the first available date at which the matter could be heard. At the conclusion of the argument and the submission of briefs, the Court took the matter under advisement and thereafter and on the 28th day of April, 1936, a decision was rendered and filed, by virtue of which the city's demurrers to the second and third causes of action being sustained but being overruled as to the first cause, the effect of which decision was to say that the city did not have the power to establish a municipal plant under its charter as alleged in the first cause of action. The second and third causes of action were dismissed. At the time of the institution of the suit on December 5, 1935, a temporary injunction was issued by the Judge and by the Court's decision of April 28, 1936, said injunction was made permanent. The City Attorney was directed by the Board to forthwith perfect an appeal from such decision to the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada. On May 5, 1936, Notice of Appeal and the Bill of Exceptions were served and immediately thereafter filed in the Supreme Court, thereby perfecting the appeal. Briefs were then filed on behalf of the city and on behalf of the plaintiff, Ronnow, in the Supreme Court and the case was called for setting in the the Supreme Court at the first calendar thereafter, that is the first Monday in July, 1936. At the calling of the calendar the case was first set for the 13th day of July for oral argument and thereafter, on the Court's own motion, this setting was vacated and the case was reset for the 20th day of July. On the 20th day of July, 1936, the case was argued before the Supreme Court by respective counsel, there being present for the City the Mayor, Commissioner Down and the City Attorney. At the conclusion of the argument the matter was ordered submitted for decision. Thereafter and on November 4th, 1936, the Court, on it's own motion, ordered the matter re-submitted and requested counsel to file supplemental briefs, which were thereafter duly served and filed, the city's Brief being filed on the 16th day of November, 1936. Thereafter and on the 17th day of December, 1936, the Court directed that further supplemental Briefs be filed, which were filed January 1, 1937, thus the case remains before the supreme Court for decision. You are reassured that the Board appreciates your interest in this matter in which we have great mutual concern. And you are further assured that we will not break faith with you but will keep our pledge to give you municipal power, which you would have gotten long ago had it not been for the injunction restraining the Board. We confidently hope that all legal obstacles may be removed in the very near future, thereby enabling the Board to proceed with actual construction. Faithfully THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF LAS VEGAS BY Viola Burns___________________ CITY CLERK LLA/vbp Vote on the passage of the motion was Commissioners Down, Krause, Marble and Perry and His Honor the Mayor voting aye. Noes none. No further business appearing before the Board at this time the meeting recessed and adjourned until Monday the 1st day of February 1937 at the hour of seven o'clock P.M.