Case ID: ohio-law-abs_2/html/0649-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LEVINE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 682
    EAST CLEVELAND (City) v. CLEVELAND RAILWAY COMPANY
    Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga County
    No. 5653.
    Decided June 30, 1924
    1101. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE — Remedy to compel street railway to operate according to ordinance, held not available where relief would require constant and continuous supervision by court.
    Attorneys — E. A. Binyon, for East Cleveland; Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, for Railr way Co.; all of Cleveland.
   LEVINE, J.

Epitomized Opinion

In 1918 the city of East Cleveland granted to the Cleveland R. Co. by Ordinance No. 1087 the right to maintain and operate a double track street railroad on Hayden avenue. In 1923 that city by Ordinance No. 1471 granted to the railway company the right to conduct and operate a double track on Superior avenue. Instead of operating a double track on this street, the railway operated a “dinky car service” on one track of this newly constructed double track. The city brought an action to compel defendant to operate its cars in conformity with Ordinance No. 1471- The lower court held for the defendant, whereupon plaintiff prosecuted appeal. In denying the relief prayed for the Court of Appeals held:

1. A court of equity will not affirmatively decree specific performance of a contract requiring continuous acts, neither will it affirmatively decree specific perforihance where the execution of the decree would require supervision of acts of either of the parties extending over a considerable period of time.