Legal Opinion

Mong v. B F Goodrich Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided March 1, 1935No. 2440PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

*199OPINION

By STEVENS, J.

The decisive question presented is whether such appliances used in the rubber industry are in fact dies or patterns withiii the purview of §5325, GC.

The words “die” and “mold” have been defined by the Supreme Court of the United States in Rubber-Coated Harness-Trimming Co. v Welling, 97 U. S. 7, at- p. 10, as follows:

“A die is a piece of metal on which is cut a device which by pressure is to be placed upon some softer body. A mould is a receptacle into which a softer material is injected, to take its shape when hardened.”

The record herein discloses that the devices called…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Rubber-Coated Harness-Trimming Co. v. WellingSupreme Court of the United States · 1878

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. American Book Co. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1969

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

Powered by the Exa API