Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000101 119

Image

File
Download upr000101-119.tif (image/tiff; 26.85 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000101-119
    Details

    Rights

    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

    #2 ffr. Thomas A* Campbell 6*21-54 at this time* We have not# however# cheeked or verified any of the dollar amounts set forth in the Escrow Instructions# since we presume that this is a matter which w ill be subject to the examination and approval of the District *s accountant# Mr. Conway. With respect to the "Amendment to Escrow Instructions#" we have no objection to the provisions contained therein# except with possible reference to subparagraph (2) thereof. This para­graph provides that the amendment is not to be effective unless the escrow is closed on July l# 1954. Apparently# the assumption is made that the only party who might prevent the close of the escrow on the said date is the District. There is# however# the possibility that the documents deposited by Union Pacific might be insufficient in some respect and that Union Pacific might prevent the escrow from being closed. It would appear to us that i f a failure to close the escrow occurred by reason of delinquency on the part of Union Pacific, the District should not be penalized by being compelled to pay the cost of the donated properties* The matter of whether or not the District can be com­pelled to pay the cost of the donated properties (fir e hydrant connections) presents a vexing problem. Under the lite ra l pro­visions of the contract with Union Pacific, Union Pacific is en­titled to receive payment for the value of such donated properties. However, it was never the intention of Union Pacific or the Dis­trict that the District should be compelled to pay the value of the donated properties or that Union Pacific should receive a windfall by reason thereof. On this basis# i t is our view that the District could bring an action for the reformation of the agreement whereby Union Pacific would not be entitled to receive payment for the value of the donated properties. From our telephone conversations# it is our understand­ing that the Board of Directors or the officers of the District w ill contact Union Pacific representatives concerning whether the escrow is to be completed on July 1, 1954. FTH tgv Incis. cos Mr. Kelson Conway Leo A, McNamee# Esq. Mr, Harry 1. Miller Mi*. William C. Renshaw vmr.E. E. Bennett fery truly yours# 0?MELVEWY & MYERS By franklin T. Hamilton