Wolfe v. Licking Gravel Co.
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.
The appeal to this court was on questions of law and fact. The Common Pleas Court rendered an able and rather exhaustive opinion. We approve of and adopt that opinion, excepting its concluding eight lines. There the court, in discussing the defendant company’s method of disposing of the overburden and topsoil, announces that “it is acting wholly within its rights,” and dissolves the injunction. Whether or not the defendant was acting within its rights in-permitting this topsoil' and overburden to be removed from the land is the sole debatable question presented to us.
During the trial, the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Millcreek Township v. PerrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
- Doster v. Friedensville Zinc Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
- Percy La Salle Mining & Power Co. v. Newman Mining, Milling & Leasing Co.District Court, D. Colorado · 1924
- Wright v. Wright Mining & Royalty Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1933
3Cited by1 opinion
- New Rocky Valley Farms, Inc. v. Pollock, Unpublished Decision (6-23-1999)Ohio Court of Appeals · 1999