Fisher v. Fisher
| Decision Date | 20 January 1892 |
| Citation | 29 N.E. 951,129 N.Y. 654 |
| Parties | FISHER et al. v. FISHER et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from supreme court, general term, second department.
Action for partition by Cleveland D. Fisher and others against Mary C. D. Fisher and others. Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment affirming a judgment for defendants. Affirmed.
Martin J. Keogh, for appellants.
Isaac N. Mills, for respondents.
This is an action of partition, brought by the plaintiffs to partition lands alleged in the complaint to belong to the parties to the action as tenants in common. The main controversy upon the trial was over a deed executed by Eliza Fisher on the 11th day of April, 1888. The title of the plaintiffs and of some of the defendants to a portion of the lands sought to be partitioned depended upon the validity of that deed. Some of the defendants claimed that it was procured by fraud and undue influence, and that, therefore, it was void and inoperative. Upon that question considerable evidence was given upon both sides, and the trial judge found that the deed was procured by improper influence, and that, therefore, it was void and inoperative. We have carefully scrutinized the evidence, and see no reason to doubt that the conclusion of the trial judge was abundantly supported, and that his judgment thereon should not be disturbed. There were no facts or circumstances in the case which estopped the parties assailing that deed from claiming its invalidity. Upon the trial Dr. Curtis was called to give evidence as to the mental condition of Eliza Fisher at or about the time when she executed the deed. It appeared that he had attended and prescribed for her professionally, and that he had also seen her at various times when he was not in attendance upon her for the purpose of treating her professionally. He was asked various questions as to her mental condition, excluding from his mind in answering the questions any knowledge or information which he had obtained as to her condition while acting as her medical attendant, and confining his answers to such knowledge and information as he had obtained of her by seeing her when she was not his patient. Counsel for the plaintiffs objected to the competency of the witness under section 834 of the Code. The court overruled the objection, and the witness was permitted to answer, and he gave material evidence as to the mental condition of Eliza Fisher. In this there was clearly no error. Edington v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smart v. Kansas City
...N. Y. 106, 63 N. E. 808; People v. Koerner, 154 N. Y. 355, 48 N. E. 730; People v. Sliney, 137 N. Y. 570, 33 N. E. 150; Fisher v. Fisher, 129 N. Y. 654, 29 N. E. 951; In re Bruendl's Will, 102 Wis. 45, 78 N. W. 169; Webb v. Ry. Co., 89 Mo. App. 611; Elliott v. Kansas City, 198 Mo. 593, 96 S......
-
Smart v. Kansas City
... ... 106; Lowenstein's ... Will, 2 Misc. (N. Y.) 325; People v. Koerner, 154 ... N.Y. 366; People v. Sliney, 137 N.Y. 580; Fisher ... v. Fisher, 129 N.Y. 655; Brendl Will, 102 Wis. 45. When ... Dr. Fulton testified in the former trial of this case ... plaintiff waived any ... ...
- Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Owen
-
Triangle Lumber Company v. Acree
... ... 783; Herries v. City of Waterloo, 114 Iowa ... 374; 86 N.W. 306; People v. Koerner (N ... Y.), 154 N.Y. 355, 48 N.E. 730, 731; Fisher v ... Fisher, 129 N.Y. 654, 29 N.E. 951 ... Other ... questions are raised and argued in the briefs, but we think ... it ... ...
-
Privileges
...to or by the physician or other health care worker while acting or attending the patient in a professional capacity. Fisher v. Fisher , 129 N.Y. 654, 29 N.E. 951 (1892). A medical facility is not §7:90 New York Objections 7-26 PRIVILEGES liable for an unauthorized disclosure of confidential......
-
Privileges
...to or by the physician or other health care worker while acting or attending the patient in a professional capacity. Fisher v. Fisher , 129 N.Y. 654, 29 N.E. 951 (1892). A medical facility is not liable for an unauthorized disclosure of conidential health information where disclosure was no......
-
Table of cases
...Dept. 1989), §§ 1:350, 1:360 Fish & Richardson v. Schindler , 75 A.D.3d 219, 901 N.Y.S.2d 598 (1st Dept. 2010), § 18:30 Fisher v. Fisher, 129 N.Y. 654, 29 N.E. 951 (1892), § 7:90 Fisher v. Jackstadt, 291 A.D.2d 689, 738 N.Y.S.2d 707 (3d Dept. 2002), § 19:80 Fishman v. Scheuer, 39 N.Y.2d 502......
-
Privileges
...to or by the physician or other health care worker while acting or attending the patient in a professional capacity. Fisher v. Fisher , 129 N.Y. 654, 29 N.E. 951 (1892). A medical facility is not liable for an unauthorized disclosure of conidential health information where disclosure PRIVIL......