Dybvig v. Sanatorium
| Decision Date | 29 January 1915 |
| Docket Number | 18,964 - (188) |
| Citation | 150 N.W. 905,128 Minn. 292 |
| Parties | SOPHIA DYBVIG v. MINNEAPOLIS SANATORIUM and Another |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the municipal court of Minneapolis to recover $240 for work and services as a professional nurse. The case was tried before Charles L. Smith, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $248.72. From an order denying defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, they appealed. Affirmed.
Action for services -- evidence.
1. Evidence in an action to recover for services rendered by plaintiff at defendants' request, in nursing a patient at a sanatorium, held sufficient to sustain a recovery as upon an express contract, established by reference to the terms under which prior services of the same general character were rendered by plaintiff for defendants, supplemented by the conduct of the parties.
Rulings on evidence.
2. There was no reversible error in the rulings concerning evidence or in the instructions.
Nathan H. Chase, for appellants.
Wilbur H. Cherry and Hugo Lundborg, for respondent.
Plaintiff had a verdict in an action to recover for services alleged to have been rendered defendants on express contract. Defendants appealed from an order denying their alternative motion.
The evidence warranted the jury in finding the following facts Defendant sanatorium conducted a general hospital in Minneapolis, defendant Baker being its secretary, treasurer and general manager. Plaintiff, a trained nurse, on March 15 1913, at defendants' request, commenced to care for a patient in the said hospital. Before she entered the employment defendants inquired concerning her charge per week. She replied: "Twenty-five dollars," to which the response was made: "All right." She continued to nurse this patient for three weeks, and thereafter received payment therefor through defendant Baker. After the expiration of a week she was again called to the hospital by defendants and took charge of another patient for one week, for which service she was similarly paid. After an interval of one day she cared for a third case in the same manner and was paid in the same way. She remained at the hospital and immediately took up a fourth case, which employment continued for more than five weeks there, and for three weeks longer at the patient's home, the latter service not being rendered in connection with defendants. Whether the five weeks service was paid for does not appear. Later, on June 11, 1913, she was again called to the hospital by defendant Baker and at defendants' request nursed another patient for more than 10 weeks, for which she was not paid. Defendants at various times promised payment generally for the service, both during its rendition and afterwards, but no definite sum was mentioned and nothing was said concerning the amount of plaintiff's charges after the first conversation referred to. The recovery here sought was for the alleged agreed compensation of $25 per week claimed to have been earned after the date last mentioned. Defendants concede the employment in question was performed wholly upon their request.
The assignments of error hinge upon the claim that the recited facts neither established the right to nor justified a recovery upon an express contract, because all evidence relating to plaintiff's employments by defendants other than the one made the basis of this action, was incompetent under the pleadings. It may be conceded that plaintiff was bound to establish an express...
To continue reading
Request your trial