City of Cleveland v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 March 1899
• Docket Number: 5,730.
• Citation: 93 F. 113
• Parties: CITY OF CLEVELAND v. CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

93 F. 113

CITY OF CLEVELAND v. CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO. et al.

No. 5,730.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

March 1, 1899

Geo. L Phillips, James Lawrence, and M. G. Norton, for plaintiff.

John T Dye and John H. Clarke, for defendant Cleveland, C., C. & St L. Ry. Co.

M. R Dickey and John H. Clarke, for defendant Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co.

Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, for defendants Pennsylvania Co. and Cleveland & P.R. Co.

INDEX.

Page

CHARGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 OPINION--

Ejectment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Abandonment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Estoppel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Statute of Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 ('A') CONTRACT OF 1849 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 ('B') ANSWER IN HOLMES CASE . . . . . . . . . . 141 ('C') ANSWER IN PRICE & CRAWFORD CASE . . . . .146 ('D') RAILROAD ACT OF 1848 . . . . . . . . . . . 147

CHARGE.

HAMMOND, J.

Gentlemen of the Jury: The first thing in order is the apology that I owe you and counsel in this case for the delay which I have caused. But to give the case proper consideration, in view of its vast importance and interest, I felt that it was necessary that I should not slur it in any respect, but should take whatever time was necessary.

Now, gentlemen of the jury, having said that much, the plaintiff having shown no right of recovery in this case, it is my duty to direct your verdict for the defendant railroad companies, and the clerk will furnish you with a form of verdict to be signed by your foreman.

This, technically, is all I need say to you, and we might close this case here. But I shall file with the record an opinion to justify this action, and will now read it in your hearing, that you may understand why it has been done, and justify me, if you may, by your judgment of agreement with that of the court in this method of disposing of the case. I adopt this plan to avoid an unnecessary and erroneous practice, when the reasons for directing the verdict are given in the form of a charge to the jury, of taking exceptions to the reasoning of the court as a basis of error. Exception to the instruction to the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff or the defendant is all that is necessary in that behalf.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

HAMMOND J.

Referring to the case of Holmes v. Railroad Co., 8 Am.Law Reg. (O.S.) 716, 93 F. 100, where Mr. Justice McLean, in his opinion in that case, relates the historical facts that have been proven also in this case, it is only necessary to further state that at the time of the dedication, in the year 1796, by the original proprietors of the Western Reserve, known as the 'Connecticut Land Company,' Bath street extended about 1,000 feet from Water street, westward to the Cuyahoga river, with an irregular width, ranging from about 60 feet to 200 feet, extending to the low-water mark of the waters of Lake Erie. The topographical character of the locus in quo was that of an almost impassable roadway, except along the sands of the beach, and with such crude excavations and gradings as had been made from time to time, until 1849, when the contract mentioned in the opinion of the court was made, except that in 1827 the government of the United States constructed a pier extending out to the then existing harbor line of deep navigation. This cut off a part of Bath street, and left it on the west side of the mouth of the Cuyahoga river, as reconstructed. The building of this pier exercised a very considerable influence on the topography of the surrounding locality, by immediately causing sand deposits and other accretions east of the pier, and at the edge of Bath street, which grew continuously. At the making of this contract, in 1849, Bath street, as it then existed, was split longitudinally from the pier eastward to Water street, leaving 132 feet south of the line for the use of the city as a highway, which strip was renamed 'Front Street,' as the 100 feet before laid off had been named 'Bath Street.' All north of it, to the waters of the lake, was included in the contract of 1849 between the city and the railroad company. Immediately after the contract, or a little before, one of the railroad companies had commenced to lay its tracks upon the part assigned to them, it being necessary to drive piles to support the tracks and keep them from being overflowed by the water,-- indeed, they ran somewhat into the water when the waters of the lake were high, through winds or storms; and the structures then built-- the freight houses and depots-- were also built on piles extending into the lake, under which the waters were constantly found. The purpose of the railroad companies, which had combined together for the common object, was to use this strip of ground for the location of their terminal facilities in this city. For this land the railroad company paid to the city, under the contract, $15,000 in their stock.

Prior to that time the heirs at law of the original proprietors, Camp & Lloyd, vendees of the three trustees appointed by the Connecticut Land Company, were disputing with the city about its rights of ownership and the validity of the dedication, and also with the railroad companies, as is shown in the opinion of the court. There were also some nine ejectment suits that had been brought by lessees of these rival claimants against the city, for the recovery of all of Bath street, including the 132 feet assigned to the city for a roadway and street. By the contract the railroad companies assumed the defense and settlement of all these suits and rival claims, not only to the part which they had acquired under the contract, but also to that part which had been assigned to the city; and they were finally, at the expenditure of very considerable sums of money, amounting, indeed, to over $50,000, paid to these claimants in one way and another, settled by the railroad companies. The railroad companies immediately commenced to improve the property by driving piles in the water and filling the ground sufficiently to construct thereon their stations, machine shops, and other structures necessary for the operation of their railroad at its terminus.

At the time Judge McLean decided the Holmes Case, these reclamations of land from the waters of the lake, with the natural accretions, amounted to about 20 acres. This was in 1853. Now, in 1899, it is shown, by the proof and maps in this case, that it has increased to 51 and some tenths acres, upon which the railroads have constructed, with solid foundations of pilings and stone, their most important terminal tracks, and the necessary facilities for their use, in the way of round houses and freight houses, and piers constructed for the landing of the vessels engaged in the navigation of the lake, to receive therefrom the freights which they carry up and down the lakes. The city spent no money in all these years for the improvement of that part of the street, and substantially it ceased to be a highway for the public, except in a casual and very limited way, for those who were engaged in fishing or otherwise above the waters of the lake. Indeed, from almost the beginning, the use of the railroad companies became almost exclusive of that part of Bath street lying next the lake, which they had acquired by the contract. Neither did the city take any control of any kind over the street, or in any wise pay that attention which owners of those jointly possessing a parcel of ground might be expected to do, who were claiming the use of it. The railroad companies spent largely over half a million of dollars in redeeming the land from the lake, and largely more than a million of dollars in the improvements put upon it,-- the buildings, and tracks, and all manner of terminal structures.

This suit was brought by an action of ejectment, in the court of common pleas, in August, 1893, and removed from that court, on the ground of local prejudice, in the year 1898, upon the claim that the contract of 1849 was an invalid exercise of power by the then existing city government, which had no authority to transfer its streets for any such purpose as that disclosed by these operations of the railroad company. It was not denied that they had the power to authorize the railroad companies to lay their tracks longitudinally on the street, to the extent of their main tracks, for the purpose of making connection with other roads, or passing their roads through the land upon which the city is situated to the places beyond to which they desired to go; but it was denied that they could transfer it for any other purpose, or that there could be anything else than a joint occupation by the public as a highway and the railroad companies as a highway, with a paramount municipal control of the city over the whole territory from the waters of the lake to the southerly boundary of Front or Bath street; that any grants by the city of any facilities for the use of the property beyond that were utterly void, for want of express legislative authority.

The defendant companies filed answers, setting up the defense of the general issue or denial; that the declaration was insufficient to convey title; that they held a paramount title through purchases from Lloyd and Camp and others claiming from the original proprietors a better title than the city had by the dedication; that the street had been vacated or abandoned by the city; the statutes of limitations through adverse possession for 21 years; estoppel by reason of the silence of the city for...