Cleveland Pittsburgh Railroad Company v. City of Cleveland, Ohio

• Decision Date: 16 November 1914
• Docket Number: No. 95,95
• Citation: 35 S.Ct. 21,59 L.Ed. 127,235 U.S. 50
• Parties: CLEVELAND & PITTSBURGH RAILROAD COMPANY, Pennsylvania Company, the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago, & St. Louis Railway Company, and the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company, Plffs. in Err., v. CITY OF CLEVELAND, OHIO, Deft. in Err
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

235 U.S. 50

35 S.Ct. 21

59 L.Ed. 127

CLEVELAND & PITTSBURGH RAILROAD COMPANY, Pennsylvania Company, the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago, & St. Louis Railway Company, and the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company, Plffs. in Err.,

v CITY OF CLEVELAND, OHIO, Deft. in Err.

No. 95.

Submitted October 13, 1914.

Decided November 16, 1914.

Messrs. William B. Sanders and Harold T. Clark for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. Newton D. Baker, John N. Stockwell, and Arthur F. Young for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 51-53 intentionally omitted] Memorandum opinion by Mr. Justice Day, by direction of the court:

The original action was brought by the city of Cleveland, Ohio, to oust the railroad companies, now plaintiffs in error, from the exclusive possession of Bath street, in that city. A number of defenses were set up by the railroad companies, but we are concerned only with the alleged deprivation of Federal right, resulting from the decision of the state court. In the court of original jurisdiction, the common pleas, judgment was rendered in favor of the city. Upon proceedings in error, that judgment was affirmed by the state circuit court, and in the supreme court of the state of Ohio the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed without opinion.

It is now undertaken to bring the case here, because of alleged violation of rights under the Federal Constitution arising by virtue of § 10 of article I. of that instrument, preventing the impairment of contract rights by subsequent legislation.

In order to bring a case here under § 237 of the Judicial Code [36 Stat. at L. 1156, chap. 231, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 227] (formerly § 709 of the Revised Statutes of the United States [U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 575]), it is well settled that the Federal right must have been set up and adjudicated against the claimant by the judgment of the state court. It is equally well settled that the contention made and passed upon in the state court cannot be enlarged by assignments of error made to bring the case to this court. This proposition is too well settled to need discussion. First Nat. Bank v. Kentucky, 9 Wall, 353, 19 L. ed. 701; Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 31 L. ed. 80, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 21, 22; Zadig v. Baldwin, 166 U. S. 485, 41 L. ed. 1087, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 639; F. G. Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler County, 166 U. S. 648, 41 L. ed. 1149, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 709; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 113, 53 L. ed. 431, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 227; Mallers v. Commercial Loan & T. Co. 216 U. S. 613, 54 L. ed. 638, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 438; Appleby v. Buffalo, 221 U. S. 524, 55 L. ed. 838, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 699.

It is equally well settled that an inpairment of the obligation of the contract, within the meaning of the Federal Constitution, must be by subsequent legislation, and no mere change in judicial decision will amount to such deprivation. Ross v. Oregon, 227 U. S. 150, 161, 57 L. ed. 458, 463, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 220, Ann. Cas 1914C, 224; Moore-Mansfield Constr. Co. v. Electrical Installation Co. 234 U. S. 619, 624, 58 L. ed. 1503, 1505, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 941; and cases cited on page 625. An examination of the record shows that the Federal right set up in the court of common pleas, and considered in the circuit court, the latter judgment being affirmed by the supreme court without opinion, concerned an alleged change of decision in the supreme court of Ohio, construing a statute...