Cassidy v. Ellerhorst

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 406
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cassidy v. Ellerhorst. Read the opinion of the Court — 110 Ohio St. 535
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 10, 1924·No. No. 18297·Published

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

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

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 406 (Cassidy v. Ellerhorst) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.