Oates v. Leonard
| Decision Date | 25 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 33948.,33948. |
| Citation | 191 Iowa 1004,183 N.W. 462 |
| Parties | OATES ET AL. v. LEONARD. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Woodbury County; W. G. Sears, Judge.
Action in equity to enjoin defendant from practicing medicine. Decree for defendant dismissing plaintiffs' petition on the merits after trial. Plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.E. C. Logan, of Correctionville, Carl R. Jones, of Sioux City, and Campbell & Campbell, of Battle Creek, for appellants.
Snell Bros., of Ida Grove, and Henderson,
Fribourg & Hatfield, of Sioux City, for appellee.
For a number of years prior to the execution of the written contract dated November 8, 1917, defendant, appellee, had been a practicing physician and surgeon, located in the town of Correctionville, Iowa, where he was conducting a small hospital and enjoyed a good practice in the town and surrounding country. Plaintiffs are both practicing physicians and surgeons, and were located in the town of Battle Creek, Iowa. On the date last mentioned defendant sold his business, including his hospital and good will, to plaintiffs, and agreed in the written contract not to again engage in the practice of medicine or surgery in the town of Correctionville or surrounding country for a period of 10 years. The contract, in so far as it relates to the obligations of defendant, is quite similar to the contract in Rowe v. Toon, 185 Iowa, 848, 169 N. W. 38. Thereafter defendant moved to his farm, some two or three miles from the town, and with some assistance from his young son, who was attending school in the town, carried on the farm. He did not maintain an office or drug store after the execution of the contract. The contract was carried out in all respects, except that appellants contend he continued to attend women in childbirth, and to write prescriptions for people in the territory surrounding the town of Correctionville. The evidence shows that defendant wrote about 120 prescriptions in the 3 1/2 years after the contract and between that time and the trial. The last prescription, as we understand the record, was in February, 1920, and there were 3 in 1919, the others prior thereto. It appears that a doctor who maintains no stock of drugs would write on the average 20 or 25 prescriptions a day, and that defendant wrote 25 to 30 in his early practice. The 120 written by defendant in the 3 1/2 years after he sold out would be less than 3 a month, on an average.
The defendant, answering, denied that he had violated the contract; denied that he had injured and willfully made inroads into the professional practice and business of plaintiffs, and denied that he would cause them loss or injury unless he was enjoined; alleged the fact to be that he only treated emergency cases which had arisen during the absence of the practicing physicians in said community, or attended emergency cases which the resident physicians refused or were unable to treat; that the only cases in which he had appeared or acted as a physician or prescribed for patients were those in which the interest of humanity and the health of the public so demanded; further denied the right or equity of plaintiffs to enjoin him from assisting humanity without charge, in the event of great emergency; and alleged that to do so would be contrary to public policy and detrimental to the general health and welfare of the community, and that to enjoin him from rendering assistance in an emergency, and without expectation of reward, the contract would be against public policy, if so construed.
The trial court held that there was no violation of the contract, and that the equities are with the defendant.
Two or three witnesses testified to instances where defendant had been called to treat patients and the circumstances of such employment, but, since their testimony is substantially the same as the testimony of defendant with reference thereto, we shall not set out their testimony. The defendant was called as a witness for the plaintiff, and is the principal witness in the case for them, and testified to the incidents just referred to and others relied upon by appellants as constituting a violation of the contract.
[1][2] Two points are relied upon by appellant: First, as to whether the contract is legal; and, second, whether the evidence shows a violation of the contract justifying a permanent injunction. That such a contract is legal was decided in the Rowe Case, supra, although the facts in the instant case are quite different. Appellee contends that under the evidence he is not practicing medicine within the meaning of the contract and the law, and that, since he recognizes the binding obligation of the contract, and is trying to get entirely out of the practice, even in emergency and charity cases, it will be oppressive, humiliating to him in the eyes of his neighbors if he is permanently enjoined, and that, too, when substantially all the transactions complained of occurred a year or more prior to the commencement of this suit; that an injunction could not properly issue where the acts complained of, such as they were, and the alleged practice of medicine, have terminated. He contends also that to strictly construe the contract as contended by appellants would prevent him from treating a member of his own family or render medical assistance to a neighbor in an emergency, and when the services of plaintiffs or any other doctor could not be secured. As said, the testimony for plaintiffs depends largely upon their witness, the defendant, whose testimony is somewhat extended, and is covered by 25 pages of the abstract. The plaintiffs were younger practitioners. Defendant had been in the practice longer, and appellant concedes that he had the confidence of the community. A petition, signed by about 400 people in the community, was presented to defendant shortly before the trial, and with which defendant says he had nothing to do, but addressed to him, to see if some arrangement could not be made whereby he could answer calls in the case of an emergency, or when the other doctors were not available. This petition was introduced in evidence, and defendant says that it was in spite of the fact that he was farming, and did not desire to practice. Those for whom he prescribed and whom he attended were his former patients, and he says that he endeavored to have them go to the plaintiffs. For the most part the cases and prescriptions complained of were shortly after the defendant sold his practice. Some of the prescriptions were written by defendant without expectation of pay therefor. Appellant contends that, if defendant should prescribe and practice without making any charges, it would be the keenest kind of competition for them. This might be so under some circumstances. On the other hand, if such persons were indigent, as the evidence tends to show some of them were, there would be no prejudice in a financial way to plaintiffs. One of the cases treated by...
To continue reading
Request your trial