King v. Forbes Lithograph Mfg. Co.
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Writing for the Court | KNOWLTON |
| Citation | 183 Mass. 301,67 N.E. 330 |
| Decision Date | 21 May 1903 |
| Parties | KING v. FORBES LITHOGRAPH MFG. CO. |
183 Mass. 301
67 N.E. 330
KING
v.
FORBES LITHOGRAPH MFG. CO.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.
May 21, 1903.
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County.
Action by King against the Forbes Lithograph Manufacturing Company. There were rulings adverse to plaintiff, and he brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
[183 Mass. 301]P. B. Kiernan, for plaintiff.
Walter I. Badger and Geo. A. Drury, for defendant.
[183 Mass. 302]KNOWLTON, C. J.
The plaintiff is a physician and surgeon in Chelsea. The defendant
corporation employs a large number of persons in printing and lithographing at its factory in the same city. One Clayton, an employé of the defendant, was injured in the machinery at the factory, and taken to the hospital, where the plaintiff attended him. This action is brought to recover compensation for the plaintiff's services in caring for him.
The only evidence relied on to show a contract of the defendant to pay the plaintiff is testimony that a superintendent of the defendant's cartoon department, who was authorized to employ and discharge workmen, told Clayton to go to the hospital to be treated, and said that all bills would be paid by the defendant. There is no evidence that this superintendent of a department was authorized to make such a contract as agent for the defendant, and it is very plain that his authority to hire and discharge employés did not give him a right to bind the defendant by a contract to pay for medical or surgical treatment of one of its employés. See St. Louis, etc., v. Olive, 40 Ill. App. 82;Chaplin v. Freeland, 7 Ind. App. 676, 34 N. E. 1007;Sweet, etc., v. Glover, 29 Ga. 399;Meisenbach v. The Southern Co., 45 Mo. App. 232;Dale & Banks v. Donaldson Lumber Co., 48 Ark. 188, 2 S. W. 703,3 Am. St. Rep. 224. In those jurisdictions where railroad companies have been held liable for medical attendance procured for an employé by one of their agents, the liability has been limited to cases in which there was an extreme emergency calling for immediate medical or surgical attendance. The Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad Co. v. McMurray, 98 Ind. 358, 49 Am. Rep. 752, and cases cited; Holmes v. McAllister, 123 Mich. 493, 82 N. W. 220,48 L. R. A. 396. There is no evidence to warrant a finding that there was an implied contract on the part of the defendant to pay for such services, and it is not contended that the undertaking of the superintendent was ratified.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kresser v. The Boeing Co., No. 64301-1-I
...98 Ind. 358, 49 Am. Rep. 752; 31 Cyc. 1400; Sourwine v. McRoy Clay Works, 42 Ind. App. 358, 85 N. E. 782; King v. Forbes, etc., Co., 183 Mass. 301, 67 N. E. 330; Cushman v. Cloverland, etc., Co., 170 Ind. 402, 84 N. E. 759, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1078, 127 Am. St. Rep. 391; Sevier v. Birmingha......
-
Sheehan v. Elliott Mfg. Co.
...authority to employ a surgeon or physician at the expense of the company to attend an injured employee. King v. Forbes Lith. Mfg. Co., 183 Mass. 301, 302, 67 N. E. 330; Ward v. Samuels, 37 R. I. 438, 442, 93 A. 649, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 783; Terre Haute & Ind. R. R. Co. v. McMurray, 98 Ind. 358......
-
Kresser v. The Boeing Co., 64301-1-I
...98 Ind. 358, 49 Am. Rep. 752; 31 Cyc. 1400; Sourwine v. McRoy Clay Works, 42 Ind.App. 358, 85 N.E. 782; King v. Forbes, etc., Co., 183 Mass. 301, 67 N.E. Cushman v. Cloverland, etc., Co., 170 Ind. 402, 84 N.E. 759, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1078, 127 Am. St. Rep. 391; Sevier v. Birmingham, etc., ......
-
Kearines v. Cullen
...to hold that the repairs made to the step were voluntary, and, if so, the fact would not be an admission of liability on the part of the [183 Mass. 301]defendant. McKeon v. Cutter, 156 Mass. 296, 298, 31 N. E. 389;McLean v. Fiske Wharf & Warehouse Co., 158 Mass. 472, 474, 33 N. E. 499.Readm......
-
Kresser v. The Boeing Co., No. 64301-1-I
...98 Ind. 358, 49 Am. Rep. 752; 31 Cyc. 1400; Sourwine v. McRoy Clay Works, 42 Ind. App. 358, 85 N. E. 782; King v. Forbes, etc., Co., 183 Mass. 301, 67 N. E. 330; Cushman v. Cloverland, etc., Co., 170 Ind. 402, 84 N. E. 759, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1078, 127 Am. St. Rep. 391; Sevier v. Birmingha......
-
Sheehan v. Elliott Mfg. Co.
...authority to employ a surgeon or physician at the expense of the company to attend an injured employee. King v. Forbes Lith. Mfg. Co., 183 Mass. 301, 302, 67 N. E. 330; Ward v. Samuels, 37 R. I. 438, 442, 93 A. 649, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 783; Terre Haute & Ind. R. R. Co. v. McMurray, 98 Ind.......
-
Kresser v. The Boeing Co., 64301-1-I
...98 Ind. 358, 49 Am. Rep. 752; 31 Cyc. 1400; Sourwine v. McRoy Clay Works, 42 Ind.App. 358, 85 N.E. 782; King v. Forbes, etc., Co., 183 Mass. 301, 67 N.E. Cushman v. Cloverland, etc., Co., 170 Ind. 402, 84 N.E. 759, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1078, 127 Am. St. Rep. 391; Sevier v. Birmingham, etc., ......
-
Kearines v. Cullen
...to hold that the repairs made to the step were voluntary, and, if so, the fact would not be an admission of liability on the part of the [183 Mass. 301]defendant. McKeon v. Cutter, 156 Mass. 296, 298, 31 N. E. 389;McLean v. Fiske Wharf & Warehouse Co., 158 Mass. 472, 474, 33 N. E. 499.R......