Page v. Thomas, 1774-6262.
Decision Date | 16 May 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 1774-6262.,1774-6262. |
Citation | 71 S.W.2d 234 |
Parties | PAGE v. THOMAS. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
This suit was instituted in the district court of Midland county, Tex., by Dr. John B. Thomas, against Geo. W. Page, to recover the sum of $1,043.85, alleged to be the reasonable value of hospital accommodations, and surgical and medical services rendered by Dr. Thomas to Barney Hines, his wife, and four children. Trial in the district court, where the case was submitted to a jury, resulted in a verdict and judgment for Dr. Thomas for $800. On appeal by Page, this judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 47 S.W.(2d) 894. Page brings error.
It appears that a collision occurred on a public road between a motorbus owned and operated by Geo. W. Page, and a Ford car in which Barney Hines, his wife, and four children were riding. Hines and his wife and children were badly injured as a result of the collision. The driver of the motorbus carried the injured parties to a hospital owned and operated by Dr. Thomas.
On the trial, Dr. Thomas, by his pleadings and evidence, contended that before any of the above accommodations or services were rendered Page had agreed to pay for same. By his pleadings and evidence Page contended that he never agreed to pay for any such accommodations or services, but he said that he was ready and willing to pay a reasonable amount for emergency treatment. Simply stated, the trial resolved itself into an adjudication as to whether Page agreed to pay for unlimited hospital accommodations and surgical treatment, or whether his agreement only covered emergency hospital accommodations and treatment. Dr. Thomas recovered on the theory that the agreement was not limited to an emergency.
No insurance company was mentioned by the pleadings of either party. The action was purely a suit between Dr. Thomas on one side and Geo. W. Page on the other. With the issues thus pitched, Page offered in evidence the following letter:
While Dr. Thomas was on the stand as a witness in his own behalf, he clearly informed the jury that Geo. W. Page was protected in some way by insurance. In this connection we here quote from a duly approved bill of exception:
The letter referred to by Dr. Thomas in his testimony set out in the above bill is the letter above quoted.
Also one H. T. Page, a brother of Geo. W. Page, was called as a witness by Geo. W. Page. H. T. Page was a part owner of "Page Way Stage Lines" mentioned in the above letter. On direct examination H. T. Page testified:
On cross-examination by counsel for Dr Thomas the following occurred, as shown by duly approved bill of exception:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
General Motors Corp. v. Simmons
...fact is not considered material to the issue of liability. Texas Co. v. Betterton, 126 Tex. 359, 88 S.W.2d 1039 (1936); Page v. Thomas, 123 Tex. 368, 71 S.W.2d 234 (1934). When, however, as in another case, an agent of an insurance company that was the real party at interest took the witnes......
-
South Texas Coaches v. Woodard
...by the Supreme Court, on the part of appellee to inject into the trial of this case coverage by appellant of insurance. Page v. Thomas, 123 Tex. 368, 71 S.W.2d 234; Texas Company v. Betterton, 126 Tex. 359, 88 S.W.2d 1039; Southland Greyhound Lines, Inc., v. Cotten, 126 Tex. 596, 91 S.W.2d ......
-
Boddy v. Canteau, 14747
...personal injury is protected by indemnity insurance. Finck Cigar Co. v. Campbell, 134 Tex. 250, 133 S.W.2d 759 (1939); Page v. Thomas, 123 Tex. 368, 71 S.W.2d 234 (1934). However, the mention of insurance does not always require a reversal in a personal injury case. St. Louis Southwestern R......
-
Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Lovejoy, 1971.
...Is that sufficient? "Mr. Beall: Yes sir, we agree to that." The general rule laid down in an opinion by Justice Critz in Page v. Thomas, 123 Tex. 368, 71 S.W.2d 234, to the effect that, in such a case as this, the introduction by the plaintiff of testimony which informs the jury that defend......
-
Plaintiff's limine motion in employment cases in general (state)
...mention or reference, either directly or indirectly, that the Plaintiff is or may be covered by some form of insurance. Page v. Thomas, 71 S.W.2d 234 (1934); C. E. Duk's Wrecker Service, Inc. v. Oakley, 526 S.W.2d 228 (Tex. Civ. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.), on remand, 5......
-
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine for Employment Cases in General
...mention or reference, either directly or indirectly, that the Plaintiff is or may be covered by some form of insurance. Page v. Thomas, 71 S.W.2d 234 (1934); C. E. Duk's Wrecker Service, Inc. v. Oakley, 526 S.W.2d 228 (Tex. Civ. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.), on remand, 5......
-
Plaintiff's limine motion in employment cases in general (state)
...mention or reference, either directly or indirectly, that the Plaintiff is or may be covered by some form of insurance. Page v. Thomas, 71 S.W.2d 234 (1934); C. E. Duk's Wrecker Service, Inc. v. Oakley, 526 S.W.2d 228 (Tex. Civ. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.), on remand, 5......