Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000153 118

Image

File
Download upr000153-118.tif (image/tiff; 26.59 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000153-118
    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

    ,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,