Lovelock tribune. (Lovelock, Nev.) 1898-1912, 1907-05-03
RAILROADS. CLAIMS
ON RIGHT.OF WAY
How II viii Affect Title Of Lots Sold
by Pacific Improvement Co.
Vim N. Mills Answers Direct Cues
ti0n In Letter To John T. Reid,
as to Vital Question.

Editor TRIBUNE: i submit the en-.
closed for publication, without CON-
ment. This subject came up some
four years ago and it will be interest
ing for your readers and the Public in
general to know the position of the
Railroad Company whose deductions
are we'll taken and whose reasoning
from point of fact is justified in law
and in equity. Respectfully Yours,
JOHN T. REID.
San Francisco, Cal April 90, 1907.
Mr.. John 7. Reid, Lovelock, New.
Dear Sir:-Your letter of April 18th,
addressed to ". H. Bancroft, Vice.
President and Gen. Manager, has
been referred to me for answer.
You ask: will the Company insist
on the right to ownership of town
lots sold by Pacific Improvement Co.,
and others within 200 feet of the
track in this town" Answering the
above question, permit me to say
what the Company will insist upon
has not been communicated to me.
nor am | authorized to invent pol
icy for the Company, but having once
had the administration of the town
site property of the Pacific Improve
ment Company and at the same time
being General Land Agent of tn.
Central Pacific Railroad Company, !
am perfectly familiar W tn the nature
of the problem raised by your inquiry.
1t will always be matter of sur
prise to me that the Pacific Improve.
ment Company deemed itself at lber.
ty to sell town lots within the Right
OF Way granted to the Railroad Com
pany by the Government of the Unit
ed States. The first Grant made b,
the Government was Right of Way
Four Hundred Feet wide over the
public lands. This Grant preceded
the Grant of land. 1t was not a
Grant of the fee; it was an easement
and seryitude. The mortgage rests
uDon that Four Hundred feet and IL e
Company itself could not ALLEVIATE its
title any more than it could divide up
the track itself into town lots. When
the Pacific Improvement Company
sold lots within Two Hundred feet on
each side of the track, it dio not own
the land it was selling. Not owning
the land, its deeds conveyed no title;
there was nothing whatever upon
which they could act. What title by
prescription one might get because
Of occupancy is another question, but
in the State of Nevada no such title
can arise except by the pay .nent of
taxes, and since the Railroad Com
pany is assessed upon the value of
its roadbed, superstructure, Right of
Way and equipment, it is obvious
that the Railroad Company paid taxes
every year on this very Right of Way.
When you ask therefore will the
Railroad Company insist on the right
Of ownership within Two Hundred
Feet of the track, the answer is that
the Railroad Company could not leg
ally dvest itself of the title of the
Right of Way. The Board of Di.
rectors could not convey it any more
than they could sell the railroad
track. The President of the Rail-
road Company could not make it the
subject of negotiation any more than
the Railroad President could sell the
object of his trust.
In short, the Right of Way is in
alienable, Its privileges may be
shared by Right of Way for anoth-
er public use and such Right of Way
may be condemned through the exer-
else of right of eminent domain, but
as an in ividual, do not believe that
the Railroad Company can grant a
Right of Way over its Right Of Way