## Facts

- The City of Columbus built an elevated viaduct on High Street to pass over a railroad right-of-way.
- The viaduct and its approaches ran alongside railroad property for a distance.
- The City and the railroad executed a written agreement connected to the viaduct project.
- The railroad agreed to erect “neat and ornamental buildings” along its property fronting the viaduct and its approaches to screen views of railroad engines, cars, yards, and operations from the viaduct.
- After the viaduct project began, the railroad refused to build the promised structures despite the City’s demand.
- The City filed an equity action seeking specific performance compelling construction of the buildings.

## Issues

1. Whether a court of equity will specifically enforce a contract requiring a railroad to construct “neat and ornamental” buildings to screen views from a public viaduct.
2. Whether the contract’s aesthetic and construction-related obligations are too indefinite or would require ongoing judicial supervision, making damages the exclusive remedy.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment sustaining the railroad’s demurrer and dismissing the City’s petition.
- The court refused to order specific performance of the construction obligation.
- The court treated any relief as limited to an action at law for monetary damages.

## Legal Principles

- Specific performance is discretionary and generally unavailable when contract terms are too indefinite to provide a workable judicial standard.
- Equity ordinarily will not compel performance of building or construction obligations that would require continuous judicial oversight and repeated judgments about adequacy of performance.
- Promises framed in aesthetic or subjective terms (such as “neat and ornamental”) are commonly unsuitable for specific performance because compliance cannot be measured by a clear, objective rule.
- When money damages can adequately address the alleged breach, equitable relief will be denied.

## Conclusion

The court held that a municipal plaintiff could not obtain specific performance of a railroad’s promise to construct “neat and ornamental” screening buildings along its right-of-way, because the obligation was too subjective and would demand ongoing court supervision; the City’s remedy, if any, was damages.


City of Columbus v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., 15 Ohio C.D. 663 (Ohio Cir. Ct. 1904)