Correspondence, Levi Syphus to Dr. Wherry E. Neel

St • Thomas, Nevada August 2 5 th ,1927 Dr.Wherry E N e l Los Angeles, C a lif* Ds.’-4r Dr.Neel:- Have received a le tte r from L.W.Andrews,reference cancelation o f Onion Salt Company lease,and the tools claim ed bu Union Finance Company etcj The substance o f which l e t t e r s "That in canceling the lease sve,in the n otice o f fo rfitu re used the word the word Hfo r fit u r e B, when the lease reads ntermin—a te’! That same is probabley a ll rig h t, but that out o f excess o f caution he recomended serving o f further n otice o f termination on Union Salt Company,that we also send a copy o f such n otice to Union Finance Company t°gether with a le tte r apprising it,th a t we understand i t claims certain tools etc on the sa lt property that Under the lease a ll same is property o f Virgi River Salt Co. eto. * .Andrews sent forward proper copies o f a ll n otices and le tte rs to be served,and same have been duly executed by our oompany and served by mailing eto. He also stated that Union Finance Company '•ould probabley sue for the tools e t c .. That in 11 probability ti elri claim would hold,were i t not for the fa ct that Fulwider wrs President o f both the UnionSalt Company and Union Finane Company, and that »e might be able through that, or on account o f that fa ct,th a t Union Finance Company did have knowledge o f the lease at the time i t sent the tools forward, which showing ” that Union finance Company did have such knowledge,would win us the case* the foregoing is about the substance o f h is le t t e r . In my own Opinion^ is,th a t i f an o ffic e r o f a company has knowledge o f a fact,and f4 ils to disclose same to his company/aoes not constitute n otice o f such to that oompany,in a legal sences, save and except,sudh o ffic e r has had , or been delegated by h is company in that respect, fo r instance, I *&ls president o f Virgin River Sajt Company,might be©me informed o f something in conneetioon with the sale o f a few car lodes o f sa lt to some unreliable concern o f which I was also president, and not report i t to our board or to our ( V.R.S It Company®), sales agency,our company in such case would fe e l that i t ought to be able recover said sa lt or the pay fo r i t , i f the unreliable concern,of which I also was president, did not pay. Therefore i f Union Finaoe Company sues fo r the recovery o f the tools and equipment claimed, our oompany w ill have to go to court to defeat their effort,a n d to do it would have to prove,as 1 understand Andrews le tte r,th a t Union Finance Company*a business arr augment a were such,that n otice o f a Jhot to it*a president was n otice to that company* I b eliv e Dave i s to shvwd to leave that gap open, The case in any event would vOSt us not less than $1,000,00, and might easily oost us $2,000.00 by the time i t is sett led,and we miggit not then have the to o ls , i t might a l 0 so encumber the proierty that we eould not do anythin with i t for a loig long time ; E specialley since I also believe that Union Salt Oompany does not intend to give the deed clearing our t i t l e from it s lease unless there is f ir s t an adjustment on these pro0enduree?o t*** olaime<1» Therefore I recomend the follow in g p a g i* — ?"2 at an o f fic e r o l Virgin Hirer ®&lt Company, as agent fox s-aid company,effect a oetfclement with union Finance Company»on these lin e s , I perhaps should hare a&ld with Union Salt Company and Union Finance Company, t e - v i t . - Th t in the event Union Salt Company ioea, .i thin a stipulated time,a very b rie f one, executes S w i f t quit claim* deed or ddeds,by a ll parties rtQ u lsit therefore, quitclaim ing to Virgin River Salt Company e ll o f the r i # t , t i t l e and in terest o f Union Salt Company,or any one claiming under i t , to our company,which have accrued because o f their le a se .e to . ih a t, thereupon Virgin Hiver Salt Company w ill deliver a proper ley executed b i l l o f « a lt , or quitclaim deed favor o f union Finance Company,for the tools and equipment claim ed,providing i t w ill ?ims-.ediatley remove same from the promisee, or at it s own risk and chance o f lo o s, be permitted to leave same on the prem ises,until! euch time as i t may be ubl© to dispose o f them th ere,to paries ehe mlMit lease the salt' deposit? mat;;ng proper p ro v isio n ,o f course, that i f such lessee did not choose to purchase,it would in hat event imiwe&latley remove same from premises, union Finance I mean, ©osemeve them* I f w# could bring the matter to such a h e a d i n g ,c o u ld resume negotiations with hongstreth immadiatley th ereafter,in the ©vent th© other parties have not in the mean time leased,in sp ite o f the tools encumber ana©• Copy o f this hurried ©cribble goes forward laaodiatley to Mrs George,and f would lik e both o f you to give me your opinion concerning it,a n d state who you would p re f err should carry in the negotiations with Fulwider etc* I have again written Andrews,asking fo r his opinion as to whether or n ot, in case Virgin Elver Salt company hould ags-in lease it* s profarty(July exempting the tools and equipment claimed, from the lease|, Union Salt company or Union Finance Company would be able to fo rce Virgin Elver Salt Company into court and c o lle c t damage© from i t , or estop th© new lessees f r wm proceeding under their le a s e ,: 111 under the a; oumption,of course,that our’ company should eo release the property before securing the quitclaim deeds ca lled fo r under the o i l lease from union Salt Company, I f Andrews ©ay# we can so proceed with safety,providing o f course that »• exempt th© said tools e tc , and prevent the new lessees fr«m taking or ueeing them, then in that event, we can cut# ourselves about fig h tin g over the to o ls , providing we can get some one to take the lease before getting said- deed from Union S a lt, which i t seems hongstreth w ill not do. I t looks to me as i f the value o f the tools j| hot s u ffio itk , the costs to our company o f a auto considered, to J u stify ue in trying to hold °n to them, especial ley i f i t w ill delay everything e lse . Quite qlouaber o f matters have been running through my head la tle y , that &&&m to indicate very otroagley, that Have h»© been and perhaps is in a llia n ce with the City o f Cos Angeles, in the matter o f the past lea se, i f such i s the case we have a fig h t on our hands, n y A W M I r U T ?isKs&t?1 r t r a t i d M . . v « n , St M A W 1 . n w i a •sj- Dr."harry 1 Heel Lo s A n go la ., C* X. My Be..a: or H eel:- In addition to this le tte r I herewith inclose Mr Green’ s?, le tte r to you and your reply to him,also copy o f a le tte r I have tiiiu mail, written Mr Longetreth. With refaremo© to Mr Greens le tte r e t c . i l l ca y :- I doubt: very much that either Mr Fulwider or Mr Green .-/ill execute the required deed unlace i t exempts .from its operation the te e la , etc. claimed by Union Fine0.0' :qompnny, liowcver-1 jr; y be mistaken • a to that« You w ill se e ..frott- my le i ter to Long©treth that hie pro; ©sod deal, io for him self end not for the”Hmtern Sait People , 0r company •*,therefore you were right in aaeureing Green that we hud no deal ponding with cold company, *-‘nd ? you' may a lo o » lf oc, aeion requires,?-.--•gain a:;sure him we have no deal with said company. ?hen Groan wd# la st hero he wanted to know if,in .t h e event he*sent me a few dollar a to pay the express on hie to o ls , would I forward hem*, I iii) ure d Xidim 1 would do 00, bu', the request or the f e w dollars b a n n e v e r come. He being, a party to the orig in a l lease end placing the said tools thereon himself,and -e well being a party to the ';xt©ju?ioh agreement ?We c o u ld ,if ve desired or- h; d occasion to do so,hold hie tools as the p r o p e r t y o f our company* I would, ho wove* $ not want to it- bo in a n y event. A quite lo t o f the f s , 000.00 worth o f tools machinery ©to.to which onion Firuce lays claim,has been permanent ley placed in the building ani cannot be recovered in any event/. There is some question in my mind© about it s being able to recover the Well engine ,pump,and the lfn e o f pipe ext nding from the pump to the bottom of the..water tanyon the h i l l • It seem, to me thoce could not be taken up any more than could the roofin g ( rubi er or to r),b o token from the building ( i t exempte e the said roofin g on 'the buildings from it s claim ), Ac taking the ? roofing from the building would have a tendanoy to destroy the buildinp.,80 in lik e m nacr,in my opinion,would taking the engine,pump, and piping away from the supply tank on the h i l l have a tendency to destroy'-;*, eluable water tank. It is ray opinion they cannot do it,b u t posoibley I may be wrong. I wish, that,on behalf o f our. coisx'anjt,and at it s expenoe, you would i~ke this phase o f the; mutter up with Mr Andrews and get hie opinionias I have never done bo/ . I f hey o-nnofc take those thige,tbe bal«a balance they could claim; ou ld bojrWry 111! le v -lu e. The Engine and the pump <*r© both fastened to the well timbers by mean© o f bo lb and ood screws, the pip ©in g being fastened to the pump and the ter tank. I t i i m p o r t a n t that we should have, that deed,It ic also importoofct that Uie company should keep out o f court. T herefore,it might be advisable to come to some terms of oompromios with Ful wider under Mali* i f they give the deed without delay, they should have the right to atore certain o f thos tools and equipment , either- in the tunel or one o f the buildin gs,at their own riek ,or take them away from the pro, erty and store them elsewhere -s they may elect,and for us also to agree that,in the event e should release the property, endeavor to s e l l same fo" them to the ne lee see', or help them to sell them to them, do > hould f i r s t know,however,whether or not they can take take that well equipment,if they havent a right to i t we should not give i t to them S t * Thom-'.* s > Nevada August 6 t h , 1927