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
V C o m p a n y , and by A. E. Stoddard as president of Las Vecas Land and Water Company. 1 With the valuation as placed on its water production facilities by itself (see Gee. 1+ of Contract) of $751,Gl+3 as of January 1, 1950, it seeks a rental of $ 1+6,B03.9I*. per year, varying somewhat in each year. This contract valuation figure does not agree with the schedule shown on plaintiff’s Exhibit 10, where the value is shown to be $71+3,070. The rental sought is after income tax, which, from Exhibit 13, is Indicated to be $l+7>856•35 for 1951> no computed by the Witness Carson. It would appear to this Commission that with, the payment of $1+7,856.35 of income tax, and a rental of approximately $1+6,803.91+ per average year, there is a handsome profit to the Railroad Company. Witness Carson offered Exhibit 13 and testified the value of land, or, as changed by plaintiff to cost of land, to be $ 19,322, contrasted to the figure of $75>900 as agreed by the Railroad Company to be the market value of the land ns of January 1, 1950> (See Sec. 1+ Contract). \ Witness Bates testified (Transcript 175) that in his opinion ths > : .. V value of the 679-1+2 acres, which plaintiff claims is water bearing, is $1+28,650. It is hard to visualize this value when the map (Exhibit 10) indicates all of the we 11 a. of the production company are located within 2l+0 acres; and some of these wells, once flowing, are now pumped to yield the quantity of water that once ? " \ flowed freely. On cross-examination (Transcript 186), Witness Bates testified that in his opinion the 679*1+2 acres of land upon which he placed a valuation of $1+20,650 could not be sold for that amount of money. Tills Commission found the value of the laqd used and useful for water production to be $2l+,000. This Commission, in reconsideration of the matter because of the M M w m '' / ?" \ ? ? _ ? !: additional evidence offered, elects to combine the production unit with the distribution company, over which it has lawful Jurisdiction. It is again | ’ : . . \’i * ; / unfortunate that the Railroad Company has elected to consider it has two , children, when its production unit would be helpless without its distribution -5