Ohio Central Railroad Company v. Central Trust Company of New York was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1912. The case involved a dispute between the Ohio Central Railroad Company and the Central Trust Company of New York over the ownership of certain bonds. The Ohio Central Railroad Company had issued bonds to the Central Trust Company of New York in exchange for a loan. The Ohio Central Railroad Company later defaulted on the loan and the Central Trust Company of New York sought to foreclose on the bonds. The Ohio Central Railroad Company argued that the bonds were not valid because they had not been properly registered. The Supreme Court held that the bonds were valid and enforceable. The Court found that the bonds had been properly registered and that the Central Trust Company of New York had a valid claim to the bonds. The Court also held that the Ohio Central Railroad Company was liable for the loan and that the Central Trust Company of New York was entitled to foreclose on the bonds. The Court also held that the Ohio Central Railroad Company was liable for the costs of the foreclosure. This case established the principle that bonds must be properly registered in order to be valid and enforceable.

In the dissenting opinion of Ohio Central Railroad Company v. Central Trust Company of New York, Justice Holmes argued that the majority’s decision was too narrow and failed to consider all relevant facts in the case. He believed that it should have been up to a jury to decide whether or not there had been fraud committed by either party in this dispute over bonds issued by Ohio Central Railroad Company (OCR). In his view, OCR had presented sufficient evidence for a jury trial on its claim that fraudulent misrepresentations were made when it sold bonds through an agent of Central Trust Company (CTC) and CTC should be held liable for any damages resulting from those misrepresentations. Furthermore, he felt that CTC's defense against liability was weak because they did not present enough evidence to support their argument that OCR knew about the alleged fraud at the time it purchased its own bonds from CTC. Ultimately, Justice Holmes concluded that since both parties had presented valid arguments as well as conflicting evidence regarding potential fraudulence surrounding these bond sales, only a jury could properly determine who was responsible for any wrongdoing in this case.