Raoul v. Newman

• Citation: 59 Ga. 409
• Parties: William G. Raoul, plaintiff in error. v. E. M. Newman, defendant in error.
• Decision Date: 31 August 1877
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

59 Ga. 409

William G. Raoul, plaintiff in error. v. E. M. Newman, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(August Term, 1877.)

Charge of court Contracts. Principal and agent. Parent and child. Before Judge Hill. Bibb Superior Court. April Term, 1877.

This was complaint by Newman against Raoul, on an account for medical services rendered one Kit Rutland, on the employment of the defendant. The jury found for the plaintiff $425 00. The defendant moved for a new trial, on numerous grounds, but mainly because of alleged errors in the charge of the court. The charge, so far as material, is set fourth in the opinion. The motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted.

Lyon & Nisbet, for plaintiff in error.

Dessau & Strohecker, for defendant.

*BLECKLEY, Judge.

The defendant in error is a physician, and the action was by him against the plaintiff in error, for a surgical and medical bill, amounting to $425.00. The patient treated was a negro boy, thirteen or fourteen years of age, and the occasion for treatment arose from injuries received by the boy on the track of the Central Railroad, in the yard of the company's warehouse. Both his thighs were broken, his arm was crushed, his band was badly mangled, and his scrotum was torn asunder, so that his testicles rested on the thighs. The evidence is in strong and stubborn conflict as to some of the material facts; but stated most favorably for the physician, the case is briefly this: He and the plaintiff in error were strangers. The latter was an officer of the Central Railroad, and casually noticed a crowd collected about where the boy was hurt—he not knowing of it before. On going up to see what was the matter, and discovering the boy's condition, he requested some one to run for a doctor. A negro who heard the request, or to whom it was addressed, went and called in Dr. Newman, the defendant in error. The officer, in the meantime, applied himself to afford such relief to the sufferer as he could. While so engaged, he called out to know if the doctor had come. In response Dr. Newman presented himself, and said he was a physician. The officer replied, "All right; go a-head; do what you can for the boy." Some consultation followed, in which Dr. Newman suggested that the patient ought to be removed. The officer concurred, procured a wagon for the purpose, and the boy was put into the wagon. About that time the boy's father arrived. Another physician—Dr. Holmes—having also arrived, the father was requested by Dr. Holmes, to take his choice. The father answered that he had no choice; that he did not know either of them, but that as Dr. Newman was first, he supposed he was the one. Dr. Holmes then retired, as did the officer, and neitherof them interfered further. The boy was removed *in the wagon to his father\'s house, or some other, and Dr. Newman there dressed his wounds, performed the needful surgical operations, and treated him until he was cured. His bill, as declared upon, amounts to $290.00 for reducing fractures; $30.00 for replacing testicles and stitching scrotum; $30.00 for setting and stitching the mangled hand; and $75.00 for twenty-five visits, redressing wounds, and furnishing medicines. He applied to the father for money, and obtained as much as fifteen dollars, but it was taken as a loan, and a note was given. He made out no account against the father, and did not consider him as his debtor for anything. He, however, did make out a bill against the Central Railroad Company, and requested the plaintiff in error to approve it, and also corresponded on the subject with the president of the company. The officer refused to approve, and the president refused to pay. Dr. Newman then brought his action against the officer for the amount of the bill, treating it as a demand against him personally. On the question of amount, the only evidence was that of the physician himself, and he testified it was reasonable, etc. Neither the railroad company, nor the plaintiff in error, so far as appears, had any interest in the boy or in his services.

The court charged the jury, after some preliminary observations, thus: "There seems to be no conflict of evidence about the value of the services, or that the plaintiff rendered them. The contest for your attention is, whether the plaintiff was employed by the defendant, Mr. Raoul, to attend to the case. If there be any conflict of testimony in the case, it is your duty to reconcile it if you can and find what is the truth. Inquire if the plaintiff rendered the services, and if so, how he came to do so. What are the facts and circumstances under which he took charge of the case? If you find that he was employed by Mr. Raoul, the defendant, then find a verdict for the plaintiff, and find theamount and value of the services proved. If you find that he was not employed by Mr. Raoul; that he...