Quigley v. Montgomery & Chester Electric Railway Co.

Unknown CourtFebruary 29, 1904

Defendant WinNational Association of Marble Dealers

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s): Dean, Fell, Mestbezat, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Thompson
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling: Published
State: Pennsylvania

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

Court denied the union's request for a preliminary injunction to prevent the employer association from reducing the marble setters' wage scale, finding that the union had an adequate remedy at law and the action was premature.

Excerpt

Appeal, No. 24, Jan. T., 1903, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Chester Co., April T., 1900, No. 73, on verdict 'for plaintiff in case of George Quigley v. The Montgomery & Chester Electric Railway Company.. Trespass for injury to land. Before Hemphill, P. J. At the trial it appeared that George Quigley, the plaintiff, entered into an agreement in writing with the defendant which was in part as follows : “ That the party of the first part in and for the consideration of the sum of one dollar ($1.00) in hand well and truly paid by the party of the second part at and before the ensealing and delivery of these presents, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does hereby give and grant to the said Railway Company, its successors and assigns, the right and privilege to survey, locate and lay out a line for its railway, in, over and upon all that certain piece of land situate in the Township of East Pikeland, County aforesaid, beginning at the line between the property of said George Quigley and John Latshaw, thence in a Southerly direction keeping to the East of the dwelling of said Quigley and along the wall of the barnyard at a distance to be agreed upon, thence bearing to the West and continuing to the Schujdkill Road parallel to the road running to Zion’s Church, taking a strip of land twenty feet in width. The fences to be moved by the party of the first part; and the party of the first part doth hereby covenant, promise and agree to and with the party of the second part, its successors and assigns by proper deed of release and conveyance, to transfer to the said party of the second part the strip of ground not exceeding twenty feet in width, upon which said location may be made, if the same be adopted as a permanent location by the party of the second part, and the party of the second part hereby covenants and agrees that, if it adopts the temporary location for the permanent location of its railway, upon the delivery to it of a pro

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** George Quigley had a written agreement with the Montgomery & Chester Electric Railway Company regarding his land. The railway company apparently damaged or interfered with Quigley's property in some way that went beyond what their agreement allowed. Quigley sued the company in 1900, claiming they illegally entered or harmed his land (called "trespass" in legal terms). **What the Court Decided:** A jury sided with Quigley at the original trial in 1900, finding that the railway company had indeed wrongfully interfered with his property. The railway company disagreed with this decision and appealed to a higher court in 1903, but the appeals court upheld the original jury verdict in Quigley's favor. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case shows that even when workers have written agreements with companies, those companies cannot overstep the boundaries of what was agreed upon. If an employer damages your property or goes beyond what your contract allows, you have the right to hold them accountable in court. The case demonstrates that workers can successfully challenge powerful companies when their rights are violated, even if it takes years of legal proceedings.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Breach of Contract cases

9th CircuitNov 2000

Mixed Result

Umland v. PLANCO Financial Services, Inc.

3rd CircuitSep 2008

Defendant Win

Read Full Opinion More National Association of Marble Dealers Rulings All Rulings

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check My Rights Learn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.