Kennedy v. Brockelmen Bros., Inc.

Decision Date31 May 1956
Citation134 N.E.2d 747,334 Mass. 225
PartiesHarriet F. KENNEDY v. BROCKELMEN BROTHERS, Inc.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Paul V. Power, Boston, for defendant.

Before QUA, C. J., and RONAN, WILKINS, SPALDING and WILLIAMS, JJ.

WILKINS, Justice.

This is an action of contract for breach of an implied warranty of merchantability and fitness of a can of corn purchased at the defendant's store. G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 106, § 17(1). The jury found for the plaintiff in the sum of $300. The defendant's exceptions are to the denial of requests for instructions and to the charge.

The plaintiff, so far as the record shows, was the only witness to testify on her own behalf. Her testimony we summarize. In September, 1950, she was the wife of Daniel Kennedy and was employed in a store in Lawrence. On the Friday before Labor Day, 1950, she purchased at the defendant's store two cans of corn for 25 cents. She took the corn home and prepared it for supper by emptying and heating the contents. Later, upon eating the corn, whe 'felt something in her mouth that wasn't exactly like corn and spitting it out found half a worm and swallowed the other half.' She 'became immediately sick,' and for three days was ill with an upset stomach and nausea. On Saturday morning she consumed coffee and toast, and began to feel ill as a result of her stomach being upset. Her husband was not affected by the corn consumed by him, but 'she was made ill by the half of a worm that she ate.' She did not become ill immediately upon expectorating part of the worm but did become so within fifteen minutes. She went alone to the store for the corn. Her husband had gone with her sometimes. She did not always purchase groceries with money provided by him, and on this occasion used her own money.

The plaintiff introduced in evidence a letter from her attorney to the defendant, the first sentence of which was, 'This is to notify you that on September 1, 1950, my client, Mr. Daniel Kennedy, purchased at your store' some cans of corn.

A medical expert in digestive diseases, called on behalf of the defendant, testified that it was improbable that any symptoms would come from human consumption of worms such as corn borers; that he had never known the symptoms the plaintiff described to be so caused; that in any event the corn borer would have to be present in the stomach sufficiently long to produce evidences of inflammation, changes in the motility of the stomach, and then vomiting, and the required time would be more than fifteen minutes; that he had observed cases of digestive upset resulting solely from mental disturbance and anxiety; and that if the plaintiff became ill upon consuming toast and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Wallace v. Coca-Cola Bottling Plants, Inc., COCA-COLA
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • September 17, 1970
    ...to the application of the Spade rule in two food cases. Wheeler v. Balestri, 304 Mass. 257, 23 N.E.2d 132; Kennedy v. Brockelman Bros., Inc., 334 Mass. 225, 134 N.E.2d 747. In Sullivan Chief Justice Wilkins described the Spade rule as having been subjected to considerable refinements. Homan......
  • Kenney v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • April 9, 1969
    ...these implied covenants. Mrs. Copanas had not purchased the refrigerator and had no dealings with Sears. See Kennedy v. Brockelman Bros. Inc., 334 Mass. 225, 227, 134 N.E.2d 747; Sullivan v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 341 Mass. 216, 223, 168 N.E.2d We assume that if Mrs. Copanas' claim under ......
  • Jacquot v. Wm. Filene's Sons Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • April 9, 1958
    ...made by Mrs. Jacquot for her own account and not as agent for her husband, he had no cause of action. See Kennedy v. Brockelman Brothers, Inc., 334 Mass. 225, 227, 134 N.E.2d 747. Order of Appellate Division affirmed. 1 Statute 1957, c. 765, § 1, inserted a new G.L. c. 106, containing the U......
  • Haley v. Allied Chemical Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • December 1, 1967
    ...for both Allied and Plax because there was no privity of contract between Madeline and either of them. Kennedy v. Brockelman Bros. Inc., 334 Mass. 225, 227, 134 N.E.2d 747; Sullivan v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 341 Mass. 216, 223, 168 N.E.2d 80. The Uniform Commercial Code, G.L. c. 106, § 2-......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT