Legal Opinion · Dissent

North v. Higbee Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1936No. 25868Published

1DissentWilliams, J.

To avoid .fallacious reasoning, it must be kept in mind that the parent corporation desired for its own use in its business a department store building, which it was already occupying, and employed the wholly owned and controlled subsidiary to get the lease thereon. The subsidiary had no use for the building and did not profit by the getting of the leasehold. All the negotiations and the transaction itself were managed and controlled from beginning to end by the parent. True the subsidiary had been used before in a similar way, but that circumstance cannot alter the case. In such a situation…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Berkey v. Third Avenue Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1926
  2. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Minneapolis Civic & Commerce Ass'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
  3. United States v. Reading Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1920
  4. Minifie v. RowleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  5. United States v. Lehigh Valley RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1911

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API