Legal Opinion
Murphy v. Gilchrist Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided January 27, 1942PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtQua, J.
In this action upon an implied warranty of fitness for use of two pairs of pajamas purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant, the judge has reported the question of the correctness of his ruling that notice of the breach was not given by the plaintiff to the defendant within a reasonable time.
The pertinent statute, G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 106, § 38 (sales act, § 49), requires notice “within a reasonable time after the buyer knows, or ought to know of such breach.” The burden of proving that notice was given within a reasonable time rests upon the plaintiff. Jamrog v. H. L. Handy Co. 284 Mass.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Johnson v. KanavosMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- Jamrog v. H. L. Handy Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Guthrie v. J. J. Newberry Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- Bruns v. Jordan Marsh Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- Learned v. HamburgerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. City of MaldenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
- Rogiers v. Gilchrist Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
- Monroe Auto Equipment Co. v. BloomMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1950
- Bank of Boston v. BloomenthalMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1992
- House of Bianchi, Inc. v. Merrimack Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1960
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.