Ford Realty & Construction Co. v. Cleveland (City)
Ford Realty Construction Co. v. City of Cleveland.
Opinion of the Court
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 *497 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.)
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 13 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- Deon Danna v. the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., Marriott International, Inc., Russell Miller, and Zachary Curry
- Stegall v. City of Jackson
- Derby Heights, Inc. v. Gantt Water & Sewer District
- Russell v. City of Rome
- John L. Trentman, Harry C. Trentman, and Aubrey Milner, a Co-Partnership v. The City and County of Denver, Colorado, a Municipal Corporation Board of Water Commissioners of the City and County of Denver, Colorado George R. Morrison, August P. Gumlick, Nicholas R. Petry, Hudson Moore, Jr., and Robert S. Kohn, Members of the Board of Water Commissioners of the City and County of Denver, Colorado and Sam H
- Trentman v. City & County of Denver
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.