# Whitfield v. Jessup

> California Supreme Court · May 6, 1948 · 31 Cal. 2d 826

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9527756

## Case

- **Full name:** CLAUDE JENKINS WHITFIELD Et Al., Appellants, v. ROGER JESSUP Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 6, 1948
- **Citations:** 31 Cal. 2d 826; 193 P.2d 1; 1948 Cal. LEXIS 364
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Spence
- **Judges:** Carter, Schauer
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9527756

## Opinion text

*833 SPENCE, J.
I dissent.
The questions presented on this appeal were thoroughly considered and, in my opinion, were correctly decided by the District Court of Appeal when this case came before it. (Whitfield v. Jessup, 81 A.C.A. 52 [ 183 P.2d 133 ].) As shown by the opinion of that court, no notice was given by plaintiffs to defendants until almost 11 months after the purchase of the first raw cream, until over seven months after plaintiff, Dorothy Whitfield, experienced her first symptoms of illness, or until five months and 18 days after plaintiffs had been advised of the nature of such illness. Under these circumstances, the authorities cited by the District Court of Appeal show that the trial court properly granted the nonsuit since it appeared, as a matter of law, from the uncontradicted evidence that plaintiffs had failed to give the required notice “within a reasonable time.” (Civ. Code, § 1769.) I am therefore of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed.
Edmonds, J., concurred.
Respondents’ petition for a rehearing was denied June 3, 1948. Schauer, J., and Spence, J., voted for a rehearing.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9527756. Public record. Not legal advice.