Weil v. Centerfit
Citation | 201 Ala. 531,78 So. 885 |
Decision Date | 18 April 1918 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 350 |
Parties | WEIL v. CENTERFIT. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Leon McCord, Judge.
Action by S.E. Centerfit against Adolph Weil. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Transferred from the Court of Appeals under Act April 18, 1911, p. 449, § 6. Affirmed.
Weil Stakely & Vardaman, of Montgomery, for appellant.
Andrews & Rives, of Montgomery, for appellee.
The entire evidence has been examined, and we are of opinion that the trial judge, before whom the cause was tried without a jury, reached the correct conclusion; the evidence being ore tenus. The circumstances, notably the detailed conversations between divers persons and the defendant, occurring immediately after the injury, show an implied promise on the part of the defendant to become responsible for medical services reasonably necessary to be rendered to the injured party in question. Certainly the evidence on this point was sufficient to warrant the jury in drawing the inference of assent or agreement on the part of Mr. Weil to liability for necessary and reasonable medical attention to the injured man.
In Curry v. Shelby, 90 Ala. 277, 7 So. 922, the court said:
Keel v. Larkin, 72 Ala. 493, 502; Clark v. Jones Bros., 87 Ala. 475, 6 So. 362; City Council of Montgomery v. Water Works Co., 77 Ala. 248; Stoudenmire v. Harper Bros., 81 Ala. 242 1 So. 857; Curry v. Shelby, supra; Park-Robertson Hardware Co. v. Copeland, 11 Ala.App. 447, 450, 451, 66 So. 880.
If the services were rendered by Doctor Centerfit on the sole credit of the defendant, the promise of the latter was original, and without the statute of frauds. Boykin v. Dohlonde, 37 Ala. 577; Clark v. Jones, supra; Webb v. Hawkins Lumber Co., 101 Ala. 630, 14 So. 407; Strouse v Elting, 110 Ala. 132, 20 So. 123; Shepherd v. Butcher Tool & Hardware Co., 73 So. 498. Whether the defendant authorized the employment of a physician to give the necessary medical attention to his injured servant, and whether such services were extended on the faith and credit of defendant's authorization, were jury questions; and we hold that they were correctly decided by the trial judge sitting without a jury. Montgomery Brew. Co. v. Caffee, 93 Ala. 132, 9 So. 573; Shrimpton v. Brice, 102 Ala. 655, 667, 15 So. 452; Mich. College v. Charlesworth, 54 Mich. 522, 530, 20 N.W. 566; Clark v. Waterman, 7 Vt. 76, 29 Am.Dec. 150; Cheek v. Boyd (Tex.) 134 S.W. 252; Smith v. Riddick, 50 N.C. (5 Jones, Law) 342; Bradley v. Dodge, 45 How.Prac. (N.Y.) 57; Morrell v. Lawrence, 203 Mo. 363, 101 S.W. 571, 120 Am.St.Rep. 660, 11 Ann.Cas. 650; Till v. Redus, 79 Miss. 125; Scarman v. Castell, 1 Esp. 270.
This cause was tried before the court without a jury, and to the judgment of the court we must accord the same force and effect as if rendered upon the verdict...
To continue reading
Request your trial