| Court: | Ohio Supreme Court |
| Facts: | Shaw's boat is found with fish on it. Seems that the fish came from some other net contraption. Did Shaw's people "steal" the fish? |
| Posture: | Initial directed verdict of not guilty. |
| Issue: | Did the fish belong to someone else before Shaw took them? |
| Holding: | Yes. |
| Rule: | Capturing and confining fish is "complete and certain" enough to establish property. |
| Reasoning: | Practical impossibility of escape is enough, even if logical impossibility doesn't come to pass. There's not really much reasoning. The case is said to be distinguished from Young v. Hichens because the circumstances (and degree) of net-catching were different. |
| Dicta: | |