Cleveland Electric Ry. Co. v. City of Cleveland

135 F. 368, 14 Ohio F. Dec. 746, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 5110
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio
DecidedJanuary 30, 1905
DocketNo. 6,726
StatusPublished

This text of 135 F. 368 (Cleveland Electric Ry. Co. v. City of Cleveland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cleveland Electric Ry. Co. v. City of Cleveland, 135 F. 368, 14 Ohio F. Dec. 746, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 5110 (circtndoh 1905).

Opinion

WING, District Judge.

This cause comes on for hearing, on the motion of the complainant for a decree as prayed for in the bill of complaint, upon the pleadings herein. The pleadings consist of the bill and answer; the replication heretofore filed herein having been withdrawn, by leave of court, upon proper showing.

The general nature of the bill is to the effect that the complainant is a corporation owning and operating various lines of street railway in the city of Cleveland and vicinity; that the defendant the city of Cleveland is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of Ohio, and, acting under delegated power from the Legislature of the state of Ohio, has, by legislative enactment, made sundry contracts with the complainant and its predecessor's in interest, under which the complainant is operating its lines of railway in the city of Cleveland; that the defendant the Forest City Bailway Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, and operating lines of street railway in the city of Cleveland; that the controversy is one arising under the Constitution of the United States, in this: that the complainant seeks relief against the defendants in the bill by reason of an attempt on the part of the defendants to enforce against the complainant a law of the state of Ohio impairing the contract rights of the complainant, in contravention of and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and especially contrary to and in [369]*369violation of section 10, art. 1, thereof; and that the controversy involves an amount in excess of $5,000. The hill further shows that the complainant is a consolidated company, organized in the year 1893, and was formed by the consolidation of certain street railway companies which prior to the consolidation owned and operated street railways in the city of Cleveland under ordinances duly passed by the municipality and accepted by said companies. The names of the constituent companies are given in the bill at large, and are the East Cleveland Railroad Company, the Broadway & Newburgh Street Railroad Company, the Brooklyn Street Railroad Company, and the South Side Street Railroad Company. The bill avers that the complainant is the owner, by purchase, of all and singular the lines of railway, rights, and franchises of the Cleveland City Railway Company; that the Cleveland City Railway Company was a consolidated company formed by the consolidation of the Woodland Avenue & West Side Street Railroad Company and the Cleveland City Cable Railway Company, each of which was a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Ohio for the purpose of operating lines of street railway in the city of Cleveland, and at the time of such consolidation the Woodland Avenue & West Side Street Railroad Company was operating lines of railway described generally as the Woodland avenue lines and the West Side lines, and the Cleveland City Cable Railway Company was operating lines from the Public Square out Superior and St. Clair streets to the easterly limits of the city; that the total mileage of single track operated by the complainant, as successor in interest of all of the constituent companies, is about 236 miles; that the contract between the complainant and the city of Cleveland, growing out of the various consolidations, with the obligations imposed by the various ordinances set forth in the bill, required it (the complainant) to operate the entire system, and, as a part thereof, to operate through cars over different portions of said lines, and to give transfers from one line to another, as defined in the ordinances of the city of Cleveland, and that such obligations were continuing obligations; that the Woodland Avenue & West Side Street Railroad Company was organized in 1885, and was a consolidated company, formed by . the consolidation of the West Side Street Railroad Company and the Woodland Avenue Railway Company, and the said the Woodland Avenue Railway Company was the successor, by purchase, of the Kinsman Street Railroad Company, and all and singular its rights, property, and franchises, having become such about the year 1880; that by the terms of the consolidation, in 1885, of the West Side Street Railroad Company and the Woodland Avenue Railway Company, the Woodland Avenue & West Side Street Railroad Company became vested with all and singular the property rights, privileges, and franchises of said constituent companies, including the rights, privileges, and franchises theretofore owned by the Kinsman Street Railroad Company; that prior to the year 1885, when the Woodland Avenue & West Side Street Railroad Company was organized by the consolidation, the two constituent companies forming such, consolidation were independent lines of street railroad, one operating lines chiefly upon the west side of the Cuyahoga river, and the other upon the east side of said river, and [370]*370running to the southeasterly portion of the city, and each of them was acting under independent franchises. The bill further avers that, on February 1, 1885, there was duly passed an ordinance, a portion of. which is in the words and figures following, to wit:

“An ordinance to fix the terms and conditions upon which the railway tracks of the West Side Street Railroad Company and the tracks of the Woodland Avenue Railway Company and said companies may be consolidated.
“Section 1. Be it ordained by the city council of the city of Cleveland, that the consent of the city is hereby given to the consolidation of the West Side Street Railroad Company and the Woodland Avenue Railway Company, upon the following conditions: The said consolidated company is to carry passengers through, without change of cars, by running of the cars through from the workhouse on the line of the Woodland Avenue Railway Company to the point on the West Side Railroad where Gordon avenue crosses Lorain street; and, when practicable in the judgment of the council, to do likewise on the branches of the consolidated lines; and that for a single fare from any point to any point oh the lines and branches of the consolidated road no greater charge than five cents shall be collected, and that tickets at the rate of eleven for fifty cents or twenty-two for one dollar shall at all times be kept for sale on cars by conductors.”

The bill further avers that the Woodland Avenue & West Side Street Railroad Company, thus formed, duly accepted the conditions and terms of said ordinance, and since that time has observed the same.

The answer of the city of Cleveland admits the allegations with respect to the corporate existence of the complainant and of the defendant, and admits the amount involved in the controversy; that the complainant is a consolidated company organized in the year 1893, and formed by the consolidation of certain constituent companies, which at the time, and prior to such consolidation, owned and operated street railways in the city of Cleveland, and that by the terms of such consolidation, and the force and effect thereof, as provided by the statute of Ohio, the complainant became and is possessed of all the rights, privileges, and franchises possessed by said constituent companies.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

City of Cleveland v. Cleveland City Railway Co.
194 U.S. 517 (Supreme Court, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
135 F. 368, 14 Ohio F. Dec. 746, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 5110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleveland-electric-ry-co-v-city-of-cleveland-circtndoh-1905.