Standard Plate Glass Co. v. Butler Water Co.
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Beaver, Orlad, Reeder, Rice, Wickham, Willard
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- jury verdict
- State
- Pennsylvania
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
Court held that wages earned in Pennsylvania under a Pennsylvania employment contract were not subject to attachment in New Jersey, and that a pending attachment proceeding in another state was no defense to recovery of wages owed. Judgment entered for the plaintiff laborer.
Excerpt
Appeal, No. 115, April Term, 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Butler Co., Sept. T., 1895, No. 13, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass. Before Barker, P. J., of the 47th judicial district, specially presiding. Trespass by the Standard Plate Glass Company, a corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing plate glass against the Butler Water Company, an upper riparian owner, to recover damages alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff company as a riparian owner by reason of the diversion of the waters of a creek by the defendant company. Other facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $900 with interest and costs of suit. Defendant appealed. Errors assigned were (1) In instructing the jury in the general charge as follows: “Now, it has been argued by defendant’s counsel (and as to this we shall more formally instruct you -in answering the points submitted by counsel), that the plaintiff company had no right to use this water for artificial purposes created by it, after the defendant company had entered on the stream and commenced taking the water, and then complain because the supply is diminished. If the water company was rightfully taking water from the stream by virtue of its rights of eminent domain it had the right to take all the water, if necessary. If the water company was unlawfully using the water, or occupied the position of an upper riparian owner, as to it, the lower owner would have the right to use all the water for any purpose, and it would not lie in the mouth of the defendant to say to the plaintiff, ‘ you can use this water for watering cattle or irrigating the ground, but you cannot create an artificial use or demand for the water.’ ” (2) In the answer to the first point of plaintiff, said point and answer being as follows : “ In this action, being an action against a water company to recover injury to land caused by diversion of water from
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
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.
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.