upr000306 39

% f Replying to your letters of July l6th and July 26th, with reference to payment of water bill submitted by the Pioche Water System, I return herewith Mr. Wengert’s file 9312. I am of the opinion that we are not required to pay for water service.at Pioche inasmuch as we have a con­tract with the predecessor in interest of the Pioche Water System dated January 15th, 1909 and expiring January 15th, 1959> which requires the former owners of the Pioche Water System to furnish water free to the railroad, and which pre­sumably is binding upon the Pioche Water System. the Nevada-Utah Mines 8s Smelters Corporation and the Ohio- Kentucky Consolidated Mining Company to the Amalgamated Pioche Mines 8s Smelters Corporation and thence from this corporation to the Pioche Water System. I have written to District Attorney, Martin in Pioche asking for this infor­mation. From agent Rasmus son’s letter to Mr. Larkin, it would appear that the obligation from the original obligor under the aforesaid contract was assumed in the various stages of this transition, and it would further appear that Mr. Martin believes we can require free water tinder this contract, but that we should not do so because of the improve­ments in the water service made by the Pioche Water System. musson is concerned, this would have no effect upon our con­tract and the receiver cannot abrogate or cancel the obliga­tion due to the railroad under this contract. This is true notwithstanding that Mr. Martin may believe that "the old contract should not hold at least during the period of re­ceivership" . I assume that this receivership has come about under our general provisions concerning insolvent corporations, which necessarily contemplates a return of the insolvent cor­poration to the proper officers and directors when and if the debts of the corporation have been liquidated. July 28th, 1948 ( cc - Mr. D.F. Wengert. ) I am unable to determine the transition from Insofar as the receivership mentioned by Mr. Ras-