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
Member of
More Info
Rights
Digital Provenance
Publisher
Transcription
In the Richardson case, petitioner sought to have annulled an order of the Railroad Commission declaring petitioner to he a public utility and as such to continue water service to his customers# The opinion of the Court indicates that Richardson was the owner of an orchard upon which he had a well that furnished water In excess of his needs. Two of his neighbors asked Richardson to sell water to them and as a neighborly accommodation he agreed to do so, thereafter supplying them with such water as he could spare# Sometime later his supply diminished so that he would get no water and he put down a larger well from which he continued to supply his neighbors, charging a flat rate per hour which was gradually increased over the years. In defining a "publie Utility" the Court adopted language from Allen V# Railroad Commission# 175 Pac. 466, stating* »What differentiates all such (usual business) activities from a true public utility Is this, and this only.* That the devotion to public use must be of such character that the public generally, or that part of It which has been served and which has assepted the service, has the right to demand that that service shall be conducted, so long as It Is continued, with reasonable efficiency under reasonable charges. Public use, thep, means the use by the public and by every individual member of it, as a legal right." The Court further points out that to hold that property "has been dedicated to a public use is no trivial thing" and "such dedication is never presumed without evidence of unequivocal intention." The Court, in finding that there had been no dedication to public use and consequently, that Richardson was not a public utility, stated: "There is no case to which our attention has been called which goes so far as to hold that the mere fact that a private individual or corporation furnishes the surplus portion of a limited water supply to a small circle of consumers, each especially requesting and individually receiving the use and benefit of the same, and each paying an agreed sum for each particular period of such use, has been held to be a public utility by reason of these facts alone and In the absence of any other facts showing an express or implied dedication of the property to a public use."