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
,1> -5- V company incorporated the Del Mar Water, Light & Power Company for the primary purpose of supplying water, light and power in the development of the townsite. It appeared from the eivdence that distribution of water was confined substantially to residents of the townsite, although on occasions sales were made to others* The Railroad Commission determined that the water company was a public utility, that its facilities and water supplies were sufficient to supply Glass, and thereupon ordered the water company to do so* In a majority opinion, by Justice Melvin, the Court took issue with the finding that the water company had become a public utility by dedicating its facilities to a public use. More importantly, the Court ruled that the Commission could not, whenever it finds a corporation engaged in a public service and applying a part of its property to such service, take the entire property of the corporation and compel the dedication thereof to public use and direct its distribution to such portions of the public as the Commission may seem best. The Court recognized the right of the state, acting through a regulatory body, to police the services of a corporation which has devoted its entire property to the use of the entire public, or of those which may have undertaken to supply a certain district, "such as a city”, and have dedicated their property to that service, and which may fail or refuse thereafter to give to such district an adequate service or fail or refuse to extend its system to parts of such district when to do so would not &e unreasonable. It appeared that Glass, as the owner of property beyond the territory which the water company undertook to serve, was not a "beneficiary** and hence could not demand service as a matter of righ$. The precise point which you have in mind is discussed in a concurring opinion by Justice Shaw, The law upon the subject appears summed up in his concurring opinion as follows; "There can be no doubt, therefore, that the owner of a water supply may make a limited dedication of it to public use, confining the use to such territory as he sees .fit. Nor can there be any doubt that one owning a water supply is not compelled to dedicate all of it to public use, or that he may dedicate a part of it, only, to such use,