City of Columbus v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Ohio · 1904 · Contracts

Contractsequitable decreemodificationspecific construction orderrailway companyviaductcostscross-petition in error

Facts

The dispute concerned property of The Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company adjoining a viaduct and its north approach. The decree addressed specific portions of the railway company's property fronting on the east and west sides of the viaduct, identified in relation to existing railway buildings, another railroad's right of way, and the Monypeny-Hammond Company building erected after the action began. The court required construction at the railway company's own expense of neat and ornamental buildings matching the material, size, and style of the company's existing buildings and maintaining the same elevation and clearance as the viaduct, namely sixteen feet, three inches. The court expressly left for later consideration whether the company would be required to build on other portions of its property, especially property fronting on the viaduct south of Maple Street.

Issue

Whether the circuit court's decree should be modified to require the railway company to erect specified buildings on identified portions of its property adjoining the viaduct, and whether further obligations as to other portions of the property should be decided immediately or reserved for later application.

Rule

An appellate court may modify an equitable decree to require a party to undertake specifically described construction on identified property, at that party's own expense, within fixed time limits and according to stated physical specifications, while affirming the decree in all other respects and reserving further directions as future circumstances require.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a dispute over a pedestrian overpass in Toledo, a trial court entered a decree directing Great Lakes Terminal Line to improve its adjoining land, but the decree referred only to "the company's parcels near the overpass." On review, the record precisely identifies two strips: one on the east side north of the company's existing freight sheds, and one on the west side between a neighboring rail corridor and a recently built warehouse.

What is the most appropriate appellate disposition under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority approved modifying an equitable decree to make it definite and mandatory as to property already sufficiently identified in the record. It did not require immediate adjudication of all other parcels. Thus, the appellate court should specify the exact strips and construction obligations for those areas, while reserving unresolved portions for later application as circumstances require. (Derived from City of Columbus v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. (1904).)