Home PETER PICKNELLY vs. CHARLES M. HILL & another.

343 Mass. 773

November 9, 1961

Exceptions overruled. The motion of the defendants for a directed verdict was properly denied in this action for damage to the bus involved in Scannell v. Hill, decided herewith. See "brief statement of the grounds and reasons of the decision" in that case.

Home WALTER R. POWERS vs. JOHN C. MACINNES, INC.

343 Mass. 773

November 13, 1961

Exceptions overruled. In this action of contract for breach of warranty, the only issue presented is the sufficiency of the evidence that the seller received the notice required by G. L. c. 106, Section 38. The sale was made January 28, 1958, by the defendant John C. MacInnes, Inc., which in October, 1957, had succeeded to the business theretofore operated on the same premises by John C. MacInnes Company. The jury could find that the notice was addressed to John C. MacInnes Company; was received and signed for by an employee of the defendant who had been an employee of John C. MacInnes Company; and was thereafter read and immediately forwarded by an authorized employee of the defendant to the defendant's insurer. The misnomer does not make the notice ineffective. Enough appears to show that the notice was intended to be given to a particular business organization and was in fact received by it. See Blanchard v. Stone's Inc. 304 Mass. 634 , 636-639. The return receipt identified by the employee who signed it was relevant to the question of notice, and was properly admitted. There was no error.

The case was submitted on briefs.

Home GILBERT D. CARNEY & others vs. INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS OF BELMONT.

343 Mass. 773

November 15, 1961

Order for the issuance of the writ of mandamus reversed. Case remanded to the Superior Court with directions to dismiss the petition. This is a petition for a writ of mandamus by six residents of the town of Belmont to compel the inspector of buildings of the town to revoke a building permit, or, in the alternative, to enforce the zoning laws of the town so as to prevent an alleged illegal use in a single residence district. The court below ordered the writ to issue revoking the permit, and from this order the respondent appealed. G. L. c. 213, Section 1D, as amended by St. 1957, c. 155. At the arguments in this court we were informed

Page 774

by affidavit that the premises covered by the permit have been sold and are now being used for a purpose permitted by the town's zoning laws. The petitioners suggest that the case is now moot, and we agree. The order for the issuance of the writ, therefore, is reversed, not on the merits, but because the case has become moot, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court with directions to dismiss the petition. See Vigoda v. Superintendent of Boston State Hosp. 336 Mass. 724 .