Cassidy v. Ellerhorst

Ohio Supreme Court

Cassidy v. Ellerhorst

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 406

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 10, 1924

DocketNo. 18297

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 406 (Cassidy v. Ellerhorst) 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

Cassidy v. Ellerhorst, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 406 (Ohio 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

MARSHALL, C. J.

1. Liberty bonds, bonds of municipalities of other states, and stocks and bonds of corporations organized under the law’s of other states, owned by a non-resident decedent and deposited for safekeeping in this state, are not subject to Ohio inheritance tax laws under Section 5331, General Code, unless such securities are employed in commercial transactions within this state at the time of the death of such decedent.

2. A bond is evidence of an obligation, and a certificate of stock is evidence of ownership of property, but if the owner of bonds and stocks is not a resident of Ohio, and if the obligation of such bond is not enforceable in Ohio, and if such certificate represents ownership of shares of stock in corporations not resident of Ohio, such bonds and stocks are not “property” in Ohio within the meaning of that term as employed in the inheritance tax laws of Ohio.

Judgment affirmed.

Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur. Wanamaker, J., not participating.

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

MARSHALL, C. J.

1. Liberty bonds, bonds of municipalities of other states, and stocks and bonds of corporations organized under the law’s of other states, owned by a non-resident decedent and deposited for safekeeping in this state, are not subject to Ohio inheritance tax laws under Section 5331, General Code, unless such securities are employed in commercial transactions within this state at the time of the death of such decedent.

2. A bond is evidence of an obligation, and a certificate of stock is evidence of ownership of property, but if the owner of bonds and stocks is not a resident of Ohio, and if the obligation of such bond is not enforceable in Ohio, and if such certificate represents ownership of shares of stock in corporations not resident of Ohio, such bonds and stocks are not “property” in Ohio within the meaning of that term as employed in the inheritance tax laws of Ohio.

Judgment affirmed.

Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur. Wanamaker, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cassidy-v-ellerhorst-ohio-1924.