Hunter v. Whitacre-Greer Fireproofing Company
Ohio Court of Appeals
801 N.E.2d 469 (2003)

- Written by Colette Routel, JD
Facts
John Whitacre and his business, Whitacre-Greer Fireproofing Company (collectively, Whitacre) (defendants) owned 2,000 acres of land in Ohio. In 1995, Whitacre granted Gully Ridge Hounds (plaintiff), the hunting club Whitacre was then a member of, the “non-exclusive right” to engage in fox hunting on the property. Gully Ridge Hounds broke up, and a new club formed that retained this profit à prendre in the club’s name. Meanwhile, Whitacre created a new club and granted that club the right to fox hunt on the land as well. Gully Ridge Hounds sued Whitacre, seeking an injunction prohibiting Whitacre and the new club from fox hunting on the land. Gully Ridge Hounds argued that the language in the grant was ambiguous; the parties intended for Gully Ridge Hounds to have the exclusive right to fox hunt on the property but included the word “non-exclusive” because easements for oil and gas extraction had already been granted. The trial court granted the injunction. It found that the grant was ambiguous and, after considering extrinsic evidence, concluded that Gully Ridge Hounds had an exclusive right to fox hunt on the property. Whitacre appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dolliver, J.)
Concurrence (Waite, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.