Reahard v. Miller
| Decision Date | 03 March 1919 |
| Docket Number | 9308. |
| Citation | 66 Colo. 80,179 P. 157 |
| Parties | REAHARD v. MILLER. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Department 3.
Error to County Court, City and County of Denver; E. J. Ingram Judge.
Action by C. Miller against James Reahard. From judgment adverse to defendant, he appealed to the county court, which rendered judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
J. E. Simonson, W. G. Simonson, and Clarence R Anderson, all of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Wayne A. Gunkle, of Denver, for defendant in error.
This is an action brought by the plaintiff, a physician, against the defendant to recover a certain sum for medical and surgical services performed for defendant's wife. The plaintiff for his right to recover, relies upon the common-law liability of the defendant, as a husband, for necessaries furnished to the wife. The cause was originally tried in a justice court, and the judgment there being adverse to the defendant, he appealed to the county court. There are no pleadings in the case, but it appears from the record that the defendant sought to defeat recovery upon the ground that as he claimed, about six months prior to the time the services in question were rendered by plaintiff to defendant's wife, the latter left her husband, the defendant, without cause, and continued to live separate and apart from him up to the time of her death, which occurred shortly after the services, including a surgical operation, were performed. The cause was tried, in the county court, without a jury. The trial judge found the issues in favor of the plaintiff, and also made the finding 'that the defendant was cohabiting with his wife at the time of her death and that he knew an operation was to be performed upon her on or about the time it was performed,' and that the value of the services rendered was $200. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and defendant brings error.
The plaintiff in error, defendant below, in seeking a reversal of the judgment, contends that the trial court's findings, above set forth, are contrary to the evidence. In considering this contention, it should, at the outset, be noted that, in the language of this court in Gwynn v. Butler, 17 Colo. 114, 118, 28 P. 466, 468:
'The court * * * was the judge not only of the credibility of the witnesses and of the weight of the evidence, but of the inferences properly deducible from the facts and circumstances as proved.'
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moeur v. Farm Builders' Corp.
... ... v. North American Accident Insurance Co., 190 Cal ... 421, 26 A.L.R. 123, 213 P. 42; Wilbur v ... Wilbur, 197 Cal. 1, 239 P. 332; Reahard v ... Miller, 66 Colo. 80, 179 P. 157; Bell v ... Strong, 96 Conn. 12, 112 A. 645; Armstrong ... v. Oster, 189 Ind. 1, 123 N.E. 109; Thomas ... ...
-
Hiner v. Cassidy
...88 Colo. 594, 298 P. 1062; Carper v. Frost Oil Co., 72 Colo. 345, 211 P. 370; Gwynn v. Butler, 17 Colo. 114, 28 P. 466; Reahard v. Miller, 66 Colo. 80, 179 P. 157. See, also, Bowen v. People, 87 Colo. 38, 40, 284 779. An examination of the record satisfies us that we would not be justified ......
-
Hines v. Baker, 12384.
... ... judgment. Roberts v. Dietz (Colo.) 298 P. 1062 just decided; ... Gwynn v. Butler, 17 Colo. 114, 28 P .466; Reahard v. Miller, ... 66 Colo. 80, 179 P. 157; McDermott v. Lingquist, 66 Colo. 88, ... 89, 179 P. 147; Carper v. Frost Oil Co., 72 Colo. 345, 211 P ... ...
-
Roberts v. Dietz, 12696.
...of the inferences properly deducible from the facts and circumstances as proved. Gwynn v. Butler, 17 Colo. 114, 28 P. 466; Reahard v. Miller, 66 Colo. 80, 179 P. 157; McDermott Lingquist, 66 Colo. 88, 89, 179 P. 147. On review, the record is viewed in the light most favorable to the party s......