Cite as: 538 U. S. 468 (2003)
Opinion of Breyer, J.
nically speaking, belonged to the corporation. 279 U. S., at 62-63. Justice Holmes wrote, in his opinion for the Court:
"For th[e] purpose [of these statutes] no rational distinction can be taken between several persons owning shares in a vessel [here, a subsidiary] directly and making the same division by putting the title in a corporation and distributing the corporate stock. The policy of the statutes must extend equally to both. . . . We are of [the] opinion that the words of the acts must be taken in a broad and popular sense in order not to defeat the manifest intent. This is not to ignore the distinction between a corporation and its members, a distinction that cannot be overlooked even in extreme cases . . . , but to interpret an untechnical word ['owner'] in the liberal way in which we believe it to have been used . . . ." Ibid.
No more need be said.
487
Page: Index Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Last modified: October 4, 2007