Opinion

Standard Oil Co. v. Glander

155 Ohio St. 61
155 Ohio St. (N.S.) 61
44 Ohio Op. 86
98 N.E.2d 8
1951 Ohio LEXIS 536

Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Filed: Mar 14, 1951
Status: Published
Author: Tart
On the bench: Matthias, Weygandt, Zimmerman, Hart, Stewart, Tart, Middleton
Cited by: 7 cases

Reversed on other grounds by Standard Oil Co. v. Peck, 342 U.S. 382 (1952)

The opinion

Tart, J.,

concurring. I have considerable doubt about' paragraph two of the syllabus. However, I reach the same result on another ground. The Houdry plant, even before it was “capable of operation,” was at that time “acquired or held as means or instruments for carrying on the business ’ ’ within the meaning of the words found in Section 5325, General Code. At that time, the Houdry plant might not be so “held” but it was so “acquired.” The words “acquired or held” are in the disjunctive.

Stewart, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.