Fadden v. Satterlee
| Decision Date | 27 September 1890 |
| Citation | 43 F. 568 |
| Parties | FADDEN v. SATTERLEE et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
Breen & Duffie, for plaintiff.
Harl & McCabe and Chas. McKenzie, for defendant.
In the petition filed in this cause it is averred that the defendants are physicians and surgeons, engaged in the practice of their profession at Dunlap, Iowa; that on the 1st day of September, 1887, the plaintiff met with an accident whereby he fractured the bone of his left leg at the thigh that on the date named he entered into a contract and agreement with the defendants, whereby, for a valuable consideration, they agreed to set and heal said leg, and attend upon him as physicians and surgeons until said leg was cured and restored to its normal condition; that the defendants entered upon said work under said contract, and attempted to set the bone of said leg, reduce the fracture, and restore said leg to its normal condition, and attended upon and served plaintiff in said work and treatment until about November 17, 1887; that defendants so carelessly, negligently, and unskillfully set the fractured bone, and dressed and bandaged the same, that by reason thereof the injured leg is permanently maimed and deformed, to the damage of plaintiff. The petition was filed November 16, 1889, and the summons was placed in the hands of the marshal for service November 23, and was served November 27, 1889. A demurrer on behalf of defendants is interposed upon the ground that the petition of plaintiff shows that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. The Code of Iowa (section 2529) provides that--
The first point to be decided is whether the case comes under the first or fourth clause of the section; the defendants claiming that the first clause governs the case, while the plaintiff contends that it falls under the fourth clause, the contention being that plaintiff declares upon a special contract, and for the breach thereof, and therefore it is an action on an unwritten contract.
The first clause, however, declares that actions founded on injuries to the person, whether based on contract or tort shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rathje v. Mercy Hosp.
...(1) Actions founded on injuries to the person . . ., whether based on contract or tort, . . . within two years." Fadden v. Satterlee, 43 F. 568, 568-69 (S.D.Iowa 1890) (quoting Iowa Code § 2529). Thus, our legislature selected the prescriptive period of time to bring a personal injury actio......
-
Pickett v. Aglinsky, 4580.
...This rule is generally followed in applying statutes of limitations to actions for malpractice of physicians and surgeons. Fadden v. Satterlee, C.C., 43 F. 568; Hahn v. Claybrook, 130 Md. 179, 100 A. 83, L.R.A. 1917C, 1169, and note; Capucci v. Barone, 266 Mass. 578, 165 N.E. 653. A modific......
-
Peteler v. Robinson
...discovered the discoloration prior to 1913 and more than three years before the action was commenced, and hence the action was barred. Fadden v. Satterlee was also an against physicians for malpractice. The court there observed that "the averments of the petition show that the contract with......
-
Bodne v. Austin
...to tort actions. On the other hand, equally inapplicable is the decision, cited on behalf of the defendant in error, of Fadden v. Satterlee (C. C.) 43 F. 568, a malpractice case, wherein the action was held barred by the short-term statute; it appearing that the language of the Iowa statute......