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
% \ & NORWALK vs. NEW CANAAN 8l Atlantic, 10 S7 ; Plaintiff city owned land reservoir and pipe lines•in defendant town. Said pipe lines were located partially in defendants streets and id easments and conveyed water from the reservoir to the plaintiff. The water was used by certain residents of the defendant municipality at a higher rate than paid by residents of the plaintiff . Plaintiff claimed the reservoir and pipes were exempt from taxation by defendant. Court: The applicable statue provided that in a situation of this type a town could assess such "land" unless its own residents used the wafter supply;on the same as residents of’ the owning town. The assessment was stated to^alid 'ftdiSfcrthe pipe lines were held to be personal pr6- | perty, hence exempt. This reasoning was based on the fact,that the pipes were located in the private property of a party not the owner and that the parties had not intended them to become a part of the realty. Further, it was stated that the statute-referred only to 11 land" and did not contemplate the assessment of the pipe lines nor the easments. -3- /
