Legal Opinion

Akron Canal & Hydraulic Co. v. Fontaine

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided May 11, 1943No. 3532PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDoyle, J.

Plaintiff, The Akron Canal & Hydraulic Company, brought this action against various parties, including a corporation and an executor, to recover a judgment restraining them “from keeping- for hire; boats, fishing tackle, fish bait and other fishing paraphernalia, for the purpose of letting the same to various and sundry persons for fishing in or boating upon the waters of * * * Fritch’s Lake, commonly known as Wingfoot Lake, unless permission first so to do is secured from the plaintiff ‘ The petition further prays for an accounting “of rents, profits and revenues obtained by the defendants *…

2Cited by13 opinions

  1. Oklahoma Water Resources Board v. Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy DistrictSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1969
  2. Baker v. Normanoch Ass'n, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1957
  3. Gager v. CarlsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1959
  4. Keith v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1969
  5. Ace Equipment Sales, Inc. v. BuccinoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API