upr000285 221

1 2 ?anc 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 # such property sh all not be taken unless fo r a more necessary public use than that to which i t has been already appropriated * • is e s - provided that such franchise sh all not fee. taken unless fo r free highways., railroad s or other more necessary public use. Section 9156 provides that before property can fee taken i t must appear f i r s t , that the use to. which i t is to be applied is a use authorized by law"? second, that the taxing is necessary to such usej third, i f already appropriated to some public use that the public use to which i t is to fee applied is a more necessary public use* The question to fee determined hereunder, therefore, is whether the property and franchises of la s Vegas land and Water Company sal Southern.Nevada Power Company, which ©re now devoted to public use, can be taken by the municipality fo r the purpose of devoting i t to the same or identical use I t now has. The general rule o f law as la id down la MO 0* J. at Page §98 Is that while the power may be exorcised in favor o f public uses over any and a ll property, private and even public, and the property ant franchises o f corporations as w ell as of in dividu als, although dedicated to public use®, may be taken fo r other public uses, th is.ru le is subject to the lim itation that property devoted to public us® cannot be taken to be used fo r the same purpose in the same manner, as this would amount simply to the taking o f property from one and giving i t to another without any benefit or advantage whatever to the public « « . . . and, the la rg e r public use and more general public benefit resu ltin g from the operation o f a public u t ilit y by municipality w i ll warrant a condemnation by the la tt e r o f property taken by a private corporation fo r a lik e purpose* la support of the above underlined statement are cited only two cases from the State of Washington, namely, Tacoma vs Hisqually Power Company, 197 P a c ific , 199, and State vs. King County Superior Court, 138 P a c ific , £77*