Case Name: FORD REALTY & CONSTRUCTION CO. v. CLEVELAND (City)
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1928-04-16
Citations: 6 Ohio Law Abs. 496
Docket Number: No. 8393
Parties: FORD REALTY & CONSTRUCTION CO. v. CLEVELAND (City).
Judges: (Sullivan, PJ., and Levine, J., concur.)
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 6
Pages: 496–497

Head Matter:
FORD REALTY & CONSTRUCTION CO. v. CLEVELAND (City).
Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.
No. 8393.
Decided April 16, 1928.
Klein, Harris & Diehm, Day & Day, Cleveland, for Ford Realty & Construction Co.
Alfred Clum, Esq., Cleveland, for Cleveland.

Opinion:
VICKERY, J.
Under the conditions of this contract we are at a loss to understand what there was to assign. If you take the entire contract with Cleveland, the city was to be put to no expense whatever, and if you take the written offer made by the Ford Co. to West Park, it would be difficult, to see what there was to assign in equity or in law, because there was no right that Roekport (Vil.) or West Park (Vil.), or anybody else had against Cleveland.
Now when Cleveland and West Park made its contract by virtue of which West Park became a part of Cleveland, there was no provision that Cleveland should pay anything to West Park for its water system, or for the laying of its pipes, nor is there any allegation in the petition that anything was paid by Cleveland. On the contrary, nothing was paid. Consequently, under this provision of the contract there would be nothing due to West Park or anyone claiming through West Park.
It is further claimed that Cleveland is liable because the title to these pipes and mains and plugs, and so forth, always remained in the Ford Co., and the city taking possession of them took property without due process of law, in violation of the constitution of the State of Ohio and the United States.
We are not impressed with this argument.
In so far as we learn from the record, the water pipes that were laid by the Ford Co. were for the purpose of enhancing the value of their own allotment and, undoubtedly, the enhanced value of the lots was charged against the property owners who purchased lots in this allotment, who probably would not have purchased them but for the installation of the water.
Whichever view you take of this case, whether they claim by virtue of an equitable assignment where there was nothing to assign, or any other way, or if they claim by virtue of the taking o'f property without due process of law, the Ford Co. is not entitled to re cover against Cleveland, because by all the legislation, and all the ordinances and all the contracts, Cleveland was to be put to no expense at all for the laying and máintaining of these pipes, and there was no contract,. when West Park was annexed to Cleveland, whereby it agreed to pay anything.
Consequently, there is no right of action and the court below is right in deciding as it did, and there being no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
(Sullivan, PJ., and Levine, J., concur.)