Case Name: In re Application for Exemption from Taxation of Real Property of Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority: Skirvin et al., Appellants, v. Board of Tax Appeals et al., Appellees; Strauss, Appellant, v. Board of Tax Appeals et al., Appellees
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1951-06-20
Citations: 155 Ohio St. 590
Docket Number: Nos. 32476 and 32477
Parties: In re Application for Exemption from Taxation of Real Property of Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority: Skirvin et al., Appellants, v. Board of Tax Appeals et al., Appellees. Strauss, Appellant, v. Board of Tax Appeals et al., Appellees.
Judges: Zimmerman and Taft, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 155
Pages: 590–594

Head Matter:
In re Application for Exemption from Taxation of Real Property of Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority: Skirvin et al., Appellants, v. Board of Tax Appeals et al., Appellees. Strauss, Appellant, v. Board of Tax Appeals et al., Appellees.
(Nos. 32476 and 32477
Decided June 20, 1951.)
Mr. W. Ray Skirvin, for appellant Ethel M. Skirvin.
Mr. Stewart S. Cooper, for appellant Cincinnati Real Estate Board.
Mr. Jerome Goldman and Mr. Robert A. Goldman, for appellant Carl A. Strauss.
Mr. Francis T. Bartlett, Messrs. Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, Mr. John R. Bullock, Mr. David G. Gamble and Mr. Roger K. Sibbald, for appellee Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority.
Mr. Henry M. Bruestle, city solicitor, and Mr. Maurice W. Jacobs, for appellee city of Cincinnati.
Mr. C. Watson Hover, prosecuting attorney, Mr. William J. Schmid and Mr. Francis X. Schwegmann, for appellee auditor of Hamilton county.
Mr. C. William O’Neitl, attorney general, Mr. Robert E. Leach and Mr. Hugh A. Sherer, for appellee state of Ohio.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Although a majority of the members of this court are of the opinion that Sections 5356 and 1078-36, General Code, are unconstitutional, two members of the court do not concur in that view.
Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution, provides in part: "No law shall be held unconstitutional and void by the Supreme Court without the concurrence of at least all but one of the judges, except in the affirm-, anee of a judgment of the Court of Appeals declaring a law unconstitutional and void." The instant cases do not involve a judgment of that court declaring a law unconstitutional.
Five members of this court not being a sufficient number to declare Sections 5356 and 1078-36, General Code, unconstitutional, the real property in question is exempt from taxation.
Decision affirmed.
Zimmerman and Taft, JJ., concur.
Montgomery, J., of the Fifth Appellate District, sitting by designation in place of Stewart, J.