Warning

Info

Table of Contents
UnreasonableWoman, SLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

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

(1904)

Franklin Circuit Court - 15 Ohio C.D. 663, 15 Ohio C.C. Dec. 663

tl;dr:

Plaintiff contracted with Defendant railroads to erect “neat and ornamental” buildings on each side of a newly constructed viaduct to give the impression of a continuous and complete road (hiding cars and depots from view). Defendants mostly refused.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for City of Columbus v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the City of Columbus v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingCity of Columbus v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. case brief facts & holding

Facts:Plaintiff contracted with Defendant railroads to erect “neat and ornamental”...

Holding:Reversed. Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance because the terms...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the City of Columbus v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
City of Columbus v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: WILSON, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The case involves an appeal from a lower court's decision to dismiss Columbus' petitions against Cleveland and Pittsburgh railway companies. The city seeks to enforce a contract for the construction of a viaduct on High street, which requires the railway companies to erect buildings on their property facing the viaduct and High street approaches to obstruct the view of cars and engines. The defendants argue that the city lacked the authority to enter into the contract, that courts typically do not order specific performance for building contracts, and that the contract is too vague to serve as a basis for such a decree. The court recognizes that the city lacks the administrative power to enforce the building of structures, but as a private business corporation, it has the authority to enter into contracts that benefit the community. The court has jurisdiction to enforce specific performance of a contract for defined work on the defendant's property, in which the plaintiff has a material interest and which cannot be compensated for by damages. The court will enforce specific performance of a covenant when it is necessary for justice and damages are inadequate. This exception also applies when there has been part performance and the defendant is enjoying the benefits. The contract must be sufficiently defined, and the court will compel a party to perform a contract in specie when they have already enjoyed the benefits of the contract.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the City of Columbus v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the City of Columbus v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

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

Chat for City of Columbus v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
brief-241
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.