Hardman v. Bradley

• Decision Date: 31 January 1877
• Citation: 1877 WL 9512,85 Ill. 162
• Parties: JOSEPHUS HARDMANv.GEORGE W. BRADLEY.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

85 Ill. 162

1877 WL 9512 (Ill.)

JOSEPHUS HARDMAN

v.GEORGE W. BRADLEY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1877.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Morgan county; the Hon. CYRUS EPLER, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. EPLER & CALLON, for the appellant.

Messrs. MORRISON, WHITLOCK & LIPPINCOTT, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was assumpsit, in the county court of Morgan county, by George W. Bradley, plaintiff, and against Josephus Hardman, defendant, to recover for medical services rendered by the plaintiff to one John De Laney, at the special instance and request of the defendant, as alleged. There was a trial in the county court, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff and judgment thereon, to reverse which, the defendant appealed to the circuit court on a bill of exceptions, and in that court the judgment was affirmed, and the defendant appeals to this court. There was, besides other pleas, the plea of the Statute of Frauds and Perjuries, that it was the debt of another, and no promise in writing, by defendant, to pay.

To this plea there were two replications: First, That the promise was made before the services were rendered; and, Second, That the credit was given originally to defendant, and not to De Laney, and these were the principal issues tried.

From the evidence in the record, we are satisfied the plaintiff failed to maintain the issue on his part. It is impossible to read it, and arrive at any other conclusion. The question was, did defendant employ plaintiff to render medical services to De Laney before he entered upon the performance of the service? In other words, was the undertaking an original undertaking by defendant, and so not within the Statute of Frauds? Was defendant primarily liable? This is conclusively and satisfactorily answered by the plaintiff's acts, and that is, he made on his books the charge against De Laney, and against him alone, and, in several different settlements had thereafter with defendant, at one of which a balance was found due defendant of thirty-five dollars, he never intimated to defendant that he held him liable for these medical services. The weight of the evidence is, the extent of defendant's promise was, to pay him for a visit to De Laney, and that was all.

But the books of account of the plaintiff are of the most convincing and conclusive character. On them, De Laney is the debtor. If one has a claim against another, and keeps books, it...