Legal Opinion
Hinman v. Barnes
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided May 1, 1946No. 30450PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMatthias, J.
The claim of The Toledo Edison Company that it is the owner in fee of the premises in controversy is based upon an instrument designated ‘£ Contract for Right of Way,” executed on March 8, 1901, by Harriet Hammond, which instrument (omitting acknowledgment) is 'as follows:
££ CONTRACT FOR RIGHT OF WAY
“This agreement made this 8th day of March, A. D., 1901, between Harriet Hammond, party of the first part, and The Sandusky & Interurban Electric Railway Company, party of the second part, witnesseth:
“That said Harriet Hammond, party of the first part, in consideration of the benefits to be…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Brightwell v. International-Great Northern RailroadTexas Supreme Court · 1932
- Sherman v. Petroleum ExplorationCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1939
- Lindokken v. PaulsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
- In Re Copps Chapel Methodist Episcopal ChurchOhio Supreme Court · 1929
- State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. Union Electric Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1941
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Myers v. East Ohio Gas Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1977
- American Energy Corp. v. DatkuliakOhio Court of Appeals · 2007
- L. & G. Realty & Construction Co. v. City of IndianapolisIndiana Court of Appeals · 1957
- LRC Realty, Inc. v. B.E.B. Properties (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
- Jolliff v. Hardin Cable Television Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1971
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.