# Stewart Honeybee Products, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Board of Finance & Revenue

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · September 12, 1990 · 525 Pa. 222

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9749649

## Case

- **Full name:** STEWART HONEYBEE PRODUCTS, INC., Appellee, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, BOARD OF FINANCE AND REVENUE, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 12, 1990
- **Citations:** 525 Pa. 222; 579 A.2d 872; 1990 Pa. LEXIS 165
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cappy
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Zappala, Papadakos, Cappy
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9749649

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the taxpayer’s processing of raw honey did not constitute manufacturing because the basic substance with which the taxpayer works, i.e., honey, is not substantially changed and is not, therefore, a new, different, and useful product

## Opinion text

*227 CAPPY, Justice,
concurring.
I join in the result reached by the majority. I write separately to express my belief that the majority opinion is inconsistent with the opinion of this Court in Ski Roundtop v. Commonwealth, 520 Pa. 227 , 553 A.2d 928 (1989).
In Ski Roundtop , the process by which pressurized air and water are combined to form snow was determined to be manufacturing. In the instant case, the process by which raw honey is filtered, pasteurized and packaged as commercially salable honey was determined not to be manufacturing. The rationale for distinguishing the two cases is that a new product — “snow”—is created by the process undertaken in Ski Roundtop ; whereas, in the present case the appellant began and ended with the same product — “honey”. This is a distinction without a difference.
The result reached in the present case is consistent with our prior decisions in Rieck-McJunkin Dairy Co. v. Pittsburgh School District, 362 Pa. 13 , 66 A.2d 295 (1949), pasteurization of milk is not manufacturing; Commonwealth v. American Ice, 406 Pa. 322 , 178 A.2d 768 (1966), cooling water to make ice is not manufacturing; Commonwealth v. Tetley Tea Co., Inc., 421 Pa. 614 , 220 A.2d 832 (1965), eliminating foreign matter from loose tea is not manufacturing. Ski Roundtop , is not consistent with the majority opinion herein, nor is it consistent with any of the prior decisions just cited.
Ski Roundtop , is an anomaly and should be overruled.
McDERMOTT, J., joins in concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9749649. Public record. Not legal advice.