Wellman v. Jones

• Citation: 124 Ala. 580,27 So. 416
• Parties: WELLMAN v. JONES.
• Decision Date: 31 January 1900
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

27 So. 416

124 Ala. 580

WELLMAN v. JONES.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 31, 1900

Appeal from circuit court, Madison county; H. C. Speake, Judge.

Action by H. L. Jones against W. I. Wellman and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant Wellman appeals. Reversed.

This action was brought by the appellee, H. L. Jones, against W I. Wellman and others upon a contract, the substance of which is set out in the opinion. The defendants demurred to the complaint, which demurrer was overruled, and thereupon the defendants pleaded the general issue, and, by special plea the statute of frauds, and also filed the following plea "(c) That the said contract here sued on is one to secure the treatment of a patient addicted to the use of morphine, the said treatment to be by the said Hagey Institute, or by a person administering medicines in the said institute; and defendants allege that neither the said Hagey Institute nor the said person was authorized by a certificate of qualification by an authorized board of medical examiners to sell drugs or practice medicine in any of its branches in said state, nor was either otherwise authorized to practice medicine or sell drugs in said state, and the said contract is illegal and void." The plaintiff moved to strike plea marked "c" from the files, and also demurred to it upon the ground that it interposed no defense. The motion and the demurrer as to this plea were overruled, and thereupon the trial was had upon issue joined on the several pleas. The facts of the case and the rulings of the court upon the evidence are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the court, at the request of the plaintiff, gave to the jury the following written charges: (1) "In contracts or agreement, where there is a conflict in the evidence as to the terms of the contract or agreement, it is the duty of the jury to determine the intention of the parties from the evidence in the case." (2) "If there is a conflict in the evidence as to the terms of the contract made between the plaintiffs and the defendants, then it is the duty of the jury to determine the intention of the parties; and in arriving at the intention of the parties the jury have the right from the evidence to look to the circumstances under which the contract was made, the subject-matter, and the object the parties intended to accomplish." (3) "If the jury believe from the evidence that the plaintiff has complied with his part of the terms of the contract made and entered into between him and the defendants, and the defendant or defendants have failed to comply with their part of the terms of said contract, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff." (4) "If the jury believe from the evidence that Dr. John A. R. Jones was not permanently cured by the treatment of the Hagey Institute of the use of morphine and chloral, and that the plaintiff has complied with all of the terms of the contract, that he placed his brother in the Hagey Institute, that he paid the amount agreed upon, and that on demand the same has not been repaid to him, then your verdict must be for the plaintiff against the defendant Wellman." (5) "If the jury believe from the evidence that there was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendants, and that plaintiff has fully complied with his part of said contract, and that the defendants have failed and refused to comply with their part of the contract, then your verdict must be for the plaintiff." (6) "If the jury believe from all the evidence that the terms of the contract are fully and satisfactorily expressed in the memoranda described in the complaint, and the jury further believe that the plaintiff has fully complied with the terms of said contract, and that the obligations, terms, and conditions of the contract have not been complied with by the defendants, and the jury believe from the evidence that Dr. John A. R. Jones was not cured of the habit of the use of morphine and chloral by the treatment of the Hagey Institute, your verdict must be for the plaintiff." (7) "It is for the jury to say from the evidence whether the Hagey Institute engaged in such practice or treatment as to require a certificate from the medical board of examiners, and if the jury believe from the evidence that such treatment did not require such certificate, then the plaintiff would not be required to prove or show that such certificate issued." (8) "If the jury believe from all the evidence that the Hagey Institute treatment of patients was such as did not require a certificate from the board of medical examiners then there would be no necessity for the plaintiff to make proof of the issuance of such a certificate." (9) "If the jury believe from the evidence that Dr. John A. R. Jones was not cured by the treatment of the Hagey Institute of the habit of the use of morphine and chloral, and that before the commencement of this suit the plaintiff demanded of the defendant W. I. Wellman the return of the one hundred dollars that the had paid under the agreement or contract, and he refused to return the same, then your verdict must be for the plaintiff." (10) "If the jury believe from the evidence in connection with all the evidence that Dr. John A. R. Jones had been using morphine for several months before his brother let him have morphine, then the jury can look to this fact, if it be a fact, in determining whether the plaintiff gave his brother the morphine for the purpose of interfering with compliance of the contract, and the intention with which it was given." (11) "If the jury believe from the evidence that there was a contract or agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants that, if the plaintiff would place his brother in the Hagey Institute, to be treated for the habit of the use of morphine and chloral, and pay to the proper officer of said institute the sum of one hundred dollars, that the defendant would, on demand, return to the plaintiff the sum of one hundred dollars if the plaintiff's brother was not permanently cured of the habit of the use of morphine and chloral; and the jury further believe from the evidence that the plaintiff did pay the sum of one hundred dollars to the proper officer of the Hagey Institute, and the plaintiff's brother was placed for treatment in the Hagey Institute, and his brother was not permanently cured of the habit of the use of morphine and chloral by the treatment of the Hagey Institute, and that the plaintiff demanded of W. I. Wellman, one of the defendants, the return of the one hundred dollars before the commencement of this suit, and he refused to return the same,-then your verdict must be for the plaintiff and against the defendant Wellman."

The defendants separately excepted to the giving of each of these charges, and also separately excepted to the court's refusal to give the several written charges requested by them, but it is unnecessary to set out these charges in detail. There were verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals, and assigns as error the several rulings of the trial court to which exceptions were reserved.

Shelby & Pleasants, for appellant.

William Richardson, for appellee.

DOWDELL J.

The contract here sued on is set out in the complaint as follows "January 13, 1893. Huntsville, Ala. We, the undersigned, jointly and individually covenant and agree with Henry L. Jones that, if he will place his brother, John A. R. Jones, in the Hagey Institute, in the city of Huntsville, Ala., to be treated as a patient addicted to the excessive use of morphine and chloral, and the said Henry L. Jones will pay in cash the sum of one hundred dollars to the proper officer of the Hagey Institute, that we will return, on demand, to the said Henry L. Jones, the said sum of one hundred dollars, provided the said John A. R. Jones is not fully and...