the transformation of water and pressurized air to snow was manufacturing because of the snow had a completely different use than the original materials
How later courts described this case
- the transformation of water and pressurized air to snow was manufacturing because of the snow had a completely different use than the original materials
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*238 McDERMOTT, Justice,
dissenting.
To say, as the majority does, that the cooling of water to make ice is not manufacturing, but that the cooling of water to make snow is manufacturing, is a distinction without difference. Either our decision in Commonwealth v. American Ice Co., 406 Pa. 322 , 178 A.2d 768 (1962), must be reversed, or this case must be decided consistent therewith.
Since I agree that the making of ice does not constitute “a substantial transformation in form ... [such] that a new article or creation has emerged,” 1 I would not reverse American Ice Co.; and, consequently, I cannot agree with the majority that the making of ice in the form of snow constitutes manufacturing.
ZAPPALA, J., joins this dissenting opinion.
. Philadelphia School District v. Parent Metal Products, Inc., 402 Pa. 361, 367 , 167 A.2d 257 , 258 (1961).