Legal Opinion

Bianchi v. Denholm & McKay Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided March 2, 1939PublishedCited by 49 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCox, J.

The plaintiff brought this action in the District Court to recover for injuries to her skin, alleged to have been caused by using a face powder purchased from the defendant in July, 1936. The judge found for the plaintiff. Count 1 of the declaration was based upon an alleged breach of warranty in the sale of the face powder. The other count, which was for negligence, need not be considered, as the judge ruled, without objection, that there was no evidence of negligence. The defendant concedes that a finding was warranted under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 106, § 17 (1), of an implied warranty that the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Adamaitis v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
  2. Holt v. MannMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
  3. Idzykowski v. Jordan Marsh Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
  4. Ireland v. Louis K. Liggett Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
  5. Flynn v. Bedell Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by49 opinions

  1. Peck v. JacqueminSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
  2. Kelsey v. Hampton Court Hotel Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1951
  3. Florence Wright and Roy Wright v. Carter Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957
  4. Mastercraft Wayside Furniture Co. v. Sightmaster Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1955
  5. Nina Merrill v. Beaute Vues Corporation, a Corporation and Waval Thermal Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1956

44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API