Canteen Co. v. Bowers

Ohio Supreme Court

Canteen Co. v. Bowers

167 Ohio St. (N.S.) 337

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 12, 1958

DocketNo. 35345

StatusPublished

This text of 167 Ohio St. (N.S.) 337 (Canteen Co. v. Bowers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Canteen Co. v. Bowers, 167 Ohio St. (N.S.) 337 (Ohio 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This court is of the opinion that the appellees, in their beverage business as above described, are “manufacturers” within the meaning of that term as used in Sections 5711.16 and 5711.22, Revised Code, and are entitled to have their above-described machines, used in such business, listed, for the purpose of taxation, at 50 per cent of their true value.

The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed on authority of Jer-Zee, Inc., v. Bowers, Tax Commr., 163 Ohio St., 31, 125 N. E. (2d), 195.

Decision affirmed.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Stewart, Taet, Matthias, Bell and Herbert, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This court is of the opinion that the appellees, in their beverage business as above described, are “manufacturers” within the meaning of that term as used in Sections 5711.16 and 5711.22, Revised Code, and are entitled to have their above-described machines, used in such business, listed, for the purpose of taxation, at 50 per cent of their true value.

The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed on authority of Jer-Zee, Inc., v. Bowers, Tax Commr., 163 Ohio St., 31, 125 N. E. (2d), 195.

Decision affirmed.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Stewart, Taet, Matthias, Bell and Herbert, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 Ohio St. (N.S.) 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canteen-co-v-bowers-ohio-1958.