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.
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
Transcription
%?' MEMO RE COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND AGAINST DRILLING OP WATER WELLS IN PROPOSED CONTRACT WITH LAS VEGAS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT The sale of the Railroad production facilities and land to the Water Company prior to the sale to the District creates a problem in how to make an effective covenant which will be binding upon the retained land of the Railroad Company. Mr. Powell, of the O'Melveny firm, is of the opinion that the deed from the Railroad to the Water Company of the water-bearing land must, contain the covenant because of the necessity of privity of estate between the covenantor and covenantee., Investiga tion of the law appears to support his views in spite of the fact that one eminent authority on the subject disagrees very decidedly. Professor Clark has written a book on "Covenants and Interests Running with the Land" in which he disagrees very thoroughly with the rules stated in the Restatement of Law and states the view that the only privity required for a covenant running with the land in the old common law cases was privity of successive ownership between the covenantee and his assigns or the covenantor and his assigns. See discussion in his book on this subject, pages 111 to 121. In the footnotes to m
