MeLean v, #d 150, Goodyear (CCA 5), certiorari Genied 57 5. Ct. 19s, This is action for damages for injuries sus~ the blowout of an automobile tire due a hidden defendant ia the wholly owned ri@intir?l sought recovery 85 Fed, tained rom defect, the The an manufacturer. ground thet the It Was conceded not within the defendant, & Rubber Co, on the is alter ego of that manufacturer wes liable, jurisdiction Again we of take the the court. liberty to subsidiary defendant the the Tire the alleged manufacturer, but Judgment of quoting of it was went for from the opinions "The Ohio subsidiary for corporation the purpose and, notwithstandinthe g ship, for the purpose of had the right to create the of dividing its business identity of stock ownerits usual business, net iavolving fraud or infringement upon the legal rights of third parties, they are to be considered separate entities, The following authorities support this conclusion: Pullman Palace-Car Co, ¥, Missouri eaGgific, 115 U. &, 687, 6.8, Ct. 194, 26 L, Ed, 4993 841: Cannon Packing Co., 267 Yanufactur. U. Oo, Chicazo, R. S. Ct, ang &1 Co. v. Cudahy Ot. 250, TT by 3d, Corporation (C.CeAs) see 51d, S69 L, v. Bd. Gregory, AGGT? eas & Py 2. 684; Consolidated. 289 Tah, Co. Bl FP. (8d) ‘FeO L" also the following U. 8. Vs Orpheum 85, cases 8, 53 Commissicner ¥, 83 Fed, 24 817, S, announeing Griffiths ov B. pe v, kis (CCA 9), v. Commissioner, Commissioner, oL4. Ct, 529, Circuit UcCreery, Lee Johnson Te. A, 256, 45 Textile doctrines: James or B, DU. 8, Cor, Ed. Vv. 27 Se 205 Ry, L. Peterson O64, the same