Case Name: EAST CLEVELAND (City) v. CLEVELAND RAILWAY COMPANY
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1924-06-30
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 649
Docket Number: No. 5653
Parties: EAST CLEVELAND (City) v. CLEVELAND RAILWAY COMPANY
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 649–649

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.