State v. Standard Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 03 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-67,73-67 |
| Citation | State v. Standard Oil Co., 39 Ohio St.2d 41, 313 N.E.2d 838 (Ohio 1974) |
| Parties | , 68 O.O.2d 24 The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. The STANDARD OIL COMPANY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
The Standard Oil Company, appellee and cross-appellant, and Donald J. Bleim entered into a gasoline service station lease and an authorized dealer agreement in 1967. The authorized dealer agreement granted Standard Oil a security interest in Bleim's inventory, accounts receivable and equipment purchased from Standard to secure payment of any debt owed Standard by Bleim.
A stipulation of facts filed in the trial court explains the business dealings between Standard and Bleim, as follows:
'As of August 31, 1968, Bleim owed Standard Oil $3,255.26, $1,933.53 of which had been due and owing to Standard Oil for more than 30 days, thereby, pursuant to the credit terms of 'net 30 days' granted to Bleim, placing Bleim in default of his lease obligation on said date.
'On August 18, 1962, Standard Oil filed in proper form Financing Statements in the office of the Lucas County Recorder and in the office of the Secretary of State concerning 'all inventory and equipment purchased by debtor from the secured party' and 'all accounts receivable owing to debtor regardless of when or how incurred.' On July 10, 1967, The Standard Oil Company of Ohio effectively continued the 1962 Financing Statement in the office of the Lucas Caounty Recorder and in the office of the Secretary of State. Copies of said Financing Statements and Continuation Statements are attached hereto as Exhibits C and D.
'Donald J. Bleim and The Standard Oil Company
terminated business relations on September 9, 1968.
'Standard Oil owned a large portion of the equipment located at the premises leased by Donald J. Bleim from Standard Oil. * * *
'Upon the termination of business relations between Bleim and Standard Oil, Bleim transferred certain inventory and merchandise, including a tire changer, which was Bleim's personal property, to Standard Oil and received credit against Bleim's delinquent account. A schedule of items transferred and amount of credit allowed for each item is set forth below: (Schedule shows total due Standard Oil is $881.60.)
'* * *
'Donald J. Bleim executed a bulk sales affidavit, and other documents as prepared and presented to him by Standard Oil, on September 9, 1968, and the goods set forth in the above schedule were conveyed by Bleim to Standard Oil on said date. * *
'No cash, check, money order or other negotiable instrument was given to Donald J. Bleim in return for any of the merchandise and inventory transferred by Bleim to Standard Oil.
'As a result of the credits for transferred merchandise granted by Standard Oil to Bleim, Bleim's account was reduced by $881.60 to $2,373.66.
The state of Ohio, appellant and cross-appellee, instituted an action in the Court of Common Pleas to enforce the sales tax assessments and penalties against both Bleim and Standard Oil. The trial court granted judgment of $2,237.05 in favor of the state against both defendants.
Standard Oil appealed to the Court of Appeals, which modified the judgment of the trial court by reducing the amount of Standard's liability to $881.60.
The cause is presently before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion and cross-motion to certify the record.
William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., Thomas E. Heydinger and Norman P. Solze, Columbus, for appellant and cross-appellee.
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, James A. Smith, James P. Murphy and Isaac Schulz, Cleveland, for appellee and cross-appellant.
The issue presented in these appeals is whether Standard Oil is liable under R.C. 5739.14 for the unpaid sales taxes accruing during the operation of the service station by Bleim.
R.C. 5739.14 provides:
...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Lks Pizza, Inc. v. Com. ex rel. Rudolph
...a security agreement, and nothing more, there is no source from which to withhold purchase money. See State v. Standard Oil Co., 39 Ohio St.2d 41, 45-46, 313 N.E.2d 838, 841 (1974) (foreclosure of defaulting debtor's property by a creditor holding a perfected security interest in such prope......
-
In re Davis
...a "sale" and therefore the transaction in this case is not brought under the ambit of O.R.C. § 5739.14. Cf. State v. Standard Oil Co., 39 Ohio State 2d 41, 313 N.E.2d 838 (1974). The provision, embodied in the separation agreement and incorporated in the divorce decree, which places upon Mr......
-
McKeever, In re
...a security agreement, and nothing more, there is no source from which to withhold purchase money. See State v. Standard Oil Co., 39 Ohio St.2d 41, 45-46, 313 N.E.2d 838, 841 (1974) (foreclosure of defaulting debtor's property by a creditor holding a perfected security interest in such prope......
-
Bates v. Director of Revenue
...Products Company v. State Board of Equalization, 12 Cal.App.3d 47, 53, 90 Cal.Rptr. 533, 538 (1970); see State v. Standard Oil Company, 39 Ohio St.2d 41, 313 N.E.2d 838 (Ohio 1974); Bank of Commerce, Turning to the question of whether appellant purchased from Cassity or Great Southern we no......
-
Purchasing an Ohio Business: Traps for the Unwary
...App.3d 678, 753 N.E.2d 214 (1st Dist. 2001). [22] R.C. 1309.617. [23] See B/G 98 Co., LLC, supra note 21. [24] State v. Standard Oil Co., 39 Ohio St.2d 41, 313 N.E.2d 838 (1974). [25] R.C. [26] R.C. 1336.04(A)(2); Lesick v. MedGroup Management, Inc., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-990097, 1999 WL......