Case Name: Gabriel Building Co. et al. v. The State, ex rel. Birrell, Pros. Atty.
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1932-06-15
Citations: 125 Ohio St. 642
Docket Number: No. 23590
Parties: Gabriel Building Co. et al. v. The State, ex rel. Birrell, Pros. Atty.
Judges: Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Stephenson, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 125
Pages: 642–642

Head Matter:
Gabriel Building Co. et al. v. The State, ex rel. Birrell, Pros. Atty.
(No. 23590
Decided June 15, 1932.)
Mr. William M. McLain, for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. G. E. Birrell, prosecuting attorney, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
The sole question for determination in this case is whether Section 13195-1, General Code, known as the "Padlock Act," is constitutional. The Ohio statute above referred to is so nearly identical with the national prohibition law on the same subject that we are constrained to follow the decisions of the United States Supreme Court which have declared the national law to be constitutional. Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S., 623; Lewisohn v. United States, 258 U. S., 630; Grossfield v. United States, 276 U. S., 494.
The petition in error will therefore be dismissed.
Petition in error dismissed.
Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Stephenson, JJ., concur.