Bieard v. I. J. Fox, Inc.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Bieard v. I. J. Fox, Inc.

76 N.E.2d 313, 321 Mass. 751, 1947 Mass. LEXIS 760

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 30, 1947

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 76 N.E.2d 313 (Bieard v. I. J. Fox, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bieard v. I. J. Fox, Inc., 76 N.E.2d 313, 321 Mass. 751, 1947 Mass. LEXIS 760 (Mass. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. The plaintiff, upon the purchase by her from the defendant of a fur coat for future delivery, signed a contract in writing which contained a provision that she would not institute any court proceedings against the defendant under the [752]*752contract until ten days after she had delivered to the defendant a signed statement in writing of the details of her claim. She brought this action for breach of the contract in refusing to deliver the coat, claiming that the defendant had attempted to deliver a coat other than the one she had, bought. There was no evidence that before bringing this action she had delivered to the defendant the signed statement required by the contract. The judge rightly entered a verdict for the defendant on leave reserved. The action was prematurely brought. The case is fully governed by MacLeod v. I. J. Fox, Inc. 306 Mass. 15. See O'Flaherty v. Cunard Steamship Co. Ltd. 281 Mass. 447. Compare Sandler v. Commonwealth Station Co. 307 Mass. 470, 472.

R. W. King & D. A. Clancy, for the plaintiff, submitted a brief. J. L. Shack, for the defendant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Exceptions overruled. The plaintiff, upon the purchase by her from the defendant of a fur coat for future delivery, signed a contract in writing which contained a provision that she would not institute any court proceedings against the defendant under the [752]*752contract until ten days after she had delivered to the defendant a signed statement in writing of the details of her claim. She brought this action for breach of the contract in refusing to deliver the coat, claiming that the defendant had attempted to deliver a coat other than the one she had, bought. There was no evidence that before bringing this action she had delivered to the defendant the signed statement required by the contract. The judge rightly entered a verdict for the defendant on leave reserved. The action was prematurely brought. The case is fully governed by MacLeod v. I. J. Fox, Inc. 306 Mass. 15. See O'Flaherty v. Cunard Steamship Co. Ltd. 281 Mass. 447. Compare Sandler v. Commonwealth Station Co. 307 Mass. 470, 472.

R. W. King & D. A. Clancy, for the plaintiff, submitted a brief. J. L. Shack, for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 N.E.2d 313, 321 Mass. 751, 1947 Mass. LEXIS 760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bieard-v-i-j-fox-inc-mass-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack