Legal Opinion

Smith v. Denholm & McKay Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 25, 1934PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPierce, J.

This is an action of contract or tort, brought to recover damages for injuries arising from the use of a proprietary article called “Koremlu,” manufactured by a corporation other than the defendant company, which the plaintiff purchased in the defendant’s store in Worcester. The plaintiff’s original declaration was in two counts, one in contract and one in tort. The judge allowed a motion by the plaintiff to amend the declaration by filing a substituted declaration consisting of four counts in contract and one count, the fifth, in tort. The defendant saved exceptions to the allowance of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Leavitt v. Fiberloid Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
  2. Idzykowski v. Jordan Marsh Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
  3. Nashua River Paper Co. v. LindsayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
  4. Jamrog v. H. L. Handy Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
  5. Downs v. HawleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Johnson v. KanavosMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
  2. Bianchi v. Denholm & McKay Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
  3. Holt v. MannMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
  4. Bruns v. Jordan Marsh Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
  5. Botti v. Venice Grocery Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941

14 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