Goodman v. Shipley

• Decision Date: 21 May 1895
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: GOODMAN v. SHIPLEY.

63 N.W. 412

105 Mich. 439

GOODMAN v. SHIPLEY.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 21, 1895

Error to circuit court, Saginaw county; Eugene Wilber, Judge.

Action by Thomas H. Goodman against Mary Shipley. From a reversal by the circuit court of a judgment for plaintiff, plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

George A. Kendall, for appellant.

Trask & Smith, for appellee.

LONG J.

This action was commenced in justice's court, where plaintiff had judgment. It was removed to the circuit court by certiorari, and the justice's judgment there reversed. This action was for medical services and medicines furnished by the plaintiff to the defendant and her daughter. The defense interposed was that the defendant was a married woman, and therefore not liable for such services and medicines. The only question raised is whether there is any evidence to support the plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff testified substantially that he was a practicing physician that he was sent for several times by the defendant, and visited her in January, February, and April, 1893, making some ten or more visits, which were worth two dollars each visit; that he was sent for by defendant to visit her daughter by a former marriage, and made some four or five visits; and also that upon several occasions he prescribed for her at his office. He further testified "Defendant's husband came for me, and told me his wife sent for me. Soon after I began visiting her, the defendant told me that she had sent for me; that she had property of her own, and would see me paid; that just then she was hard up for money, part of her property having no tenants, but she would be responsible for my pay. I charged the first visit to her, and charged the whole account to her. It has never been charged to any other person, and I have never asked any other person to pay the account." On cross-examination the plaintiff testified that all the bargain he had with defendant was as follows: "On the second or third visit, defendant told me about owning the property, and that she would see me paid; that she did not have money by her then; was hard up, and one of her houses was idle. I think she repeated the same, in substance, in April. She told me about the same, in substance, when I was called to see the girl, in May. We talked about her coming to the office when she was able, the last of May or first of June, and we made another contract. I told her what she would save by coming to the office. She stated that she was canvassing some, and she would stop in the office when she was out on that business. I told her the price, and she came off and on during two months. She said she would pay me, and regretted she did not have the money. She told me of whom she expected to have money, and when she got it she said she would pay me. She repeated she would pay me soon when she got the medicine in...