The chronicle=news., 1914-10-01
R ATOM WATER
WORKS CASE
IN COURT

RatOn, OCt. Lima week Hds
been taken up by Judge Leib of the
district court. sitting as court OF
equity, in hearing the suit of the
Ration Water Works company vs.. the
City of Ration. in which the plain.
tiff is suing the city for specific
performance of contract. The plain
tiff rested its case yesterday and
the remainder of the day was given
over to the evidence introduced by
the attorneys for the defense. Judge
Jesse G. Northcutt of Trinidad and
Attorney John Morrow are appearing
for the Water Works company and
Attorney a. T. Rogers. Jr., Of Las
Vegas and City Attorney II. l.. Bick-
ley for the defendant.
The issue, as stated by the plain
tiff is in brief as follows. In 1891,
the City of Ration granted to the
Ration Water Works company fran
chise which was ratified by large
majority vote Of the people. Under
the provisions OF Ordinance No. 10, a
provision was inserted reserving to
the city the right to purchase ths
rights and appurtenances Of the
Water Works company at any time
after five years from the time the
franchise went into effect. The pur-
chase price of the property and
rights of the company was to be ar
rived at by board OF three apprais-
ers; one to be appointed by the
company. one by the city and one
by the two appraisers SO appointed.
The price to be paid by the city was
to be the valuation of the plant as
arrived at by these appraisers. plus
ten per cent. On December 9Th.
1911. the mayor and city council for
mally passed resolution reciting
the provisions OF Ordinance No. 10
and expressed its desire and readi-
ness to buy the property of the
Water Works company and did buy
in accordance with the terms of the
ordinance. A short time later. the
city desired to substitute a plan OF
Its own in determining the physical
value Of the property in question on
ly. and have since maintained a
haggling attitude towards the entire
matter. The officers of the Water
Works company allege that the con-
tents of the latter resolutions was
not made known to them until las;
January. AS soon as informed OF
this new disposition on the part of
the city. the company, in due time
instructed that suit be brought
against the city for the specific per-
formance of the contract in accord.
ance with the terms of the resolu-
t!on Of December 9Th, 1911. Accord
ing to authorities cited by the plain
tiff. an election to purchase closes
the contract from which. in this in
stance, the city is prevented from re-
ceding without the consent of the
Water Works company. The judg
ment sought, according to the plain
tiff. asks for an equitable appraise-
ment of the property of the Ration
Water Works company by board
of appraisers appointed under pro.
visions Of Ordinance No. 10. which
will mete Justice to all parties con-
cerned and will be the best possible
thing for the city
1t is contended by the defendant
that the Ration Water Works com.
pany has not acted in good faith:
that. although the city was willing
in December. 1911. to enter into ne
gotiations for the taking over of
the company's property on fair
valuation, the company flatly refused
to enter into negotiations, hoping tc
still retain their franchise and tc
prevent municipal ownership. AZ
ter the people of Ration had clearly
indicated their will in the matter
and had proceeded to build their
own water works plant. the Water
Works company. realizing that theii
franchise would soon expire. sudden
ly assumed their present attitude
and, in a most inconsistent manner.
reverted to a dead provision in fin
al attempt to resuscitate some YES
tiGe OF right for salvage in the
passing of the old system. In equity.
according to the defendant, the
plaintiff has no possible ground for
relieving itself at this late day or
to compel the city to operate two
waterworks systems.
Immediately following the con-
clusion of this suit. the condemna-
tion proceedings. in which the city
is plaintiff and the Ration Water
Works company defendant, will be
taken up.