# Standard Oil Co. v. Glander

> Ohio Supreme Court · March 14, 1951 · 155 Ohio St. 61

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9745373

## Case

- **Full name:** The Standard Oil Co., Appellant, v. Glander, Tax Commr., Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 14, 1951
- **Citations:** 155 Ohio St. 61; 155 Ohio St. (N.S.) 61; 44 Ohio Op. 86; 98 N.E.2d 8; 1951 Ohio LEXIS 536
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Tart
- **Judges:** Matthias, Weygandt, Zimmerman, Hart, Stewart, Tart, Middleton
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed on other grounds by Standard Oil Co. v. Peck, 342 U.S. 382 (1952).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9745373

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9745373. Public record. Not legal advice.