Wurdeman v. Barnes,

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtPINNEY
Citation66 N.W. 111,92 Wis. 206
PartiesWURDEMAN v. BARNES.
Decision Date28 January 1896

92 Wis. 206
66 N.W. 111

WURDEMAN
v.
BARNES.*

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 28, 1896.


Appeal from superior court, Milwaukee county; R. N. Austin, Judge.

Action by H. V. Wurdeman against James Barnes for professional services rendered by plaintiff as a physician and surgeon in which defendant filed a counterclaim for damages for negligent and unskillful treatment. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This was an action for professional services by the plaintiff as physician and surgeon, alleged to have been rendered in treating the defendant's son, and of the alleged value of $83, and issue was taken by the defendant as to the value of the services; and he also interposed a counterclaim for damages caused by the alleged negligent and unskillful treatment of the patient, whereby the defendant had been put to great expense and otherwise damaged, etc. At the conclusion of the evidence the court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $87, the amount claimed and interest, for which judgment was given, with costs, against the defendant, and from which he appealed.

[66 N.W. 111]

Williams & May, for appellant.

J. A. Eggen, for respondent.


PINNEY, J. (after stating the facts).

1. The plaintiff was called as a specialist to treat the eyes and ears of the defendant's son, who had sustained serious injury by the explosion of a dynamite cartridge. The plaintiff testified as to the value of his services, the circumstances under which they were rendered, and the nature of his treatment; that the services were worth $83, and that the rates were less than usually charged for such services. There was no evidence to the contrary. The account consisted of a large number of items for visits,

[66 N.W. 112]

etc. The defendant's counsel proposed to cross-examine the plaintiff as to the amount charged for particular visits, and what they were worth. On objection, the court ruled that the plaintiff might be examined as to what had been done by him, but as to how much he had charged for each visit was immaterial; that if the defendant proposed to make the defense that the services were not worth anything, he could make it, and the jury would pass upon it. There was no dispute as to the number of visits or items, and we see no reason for thinking that the defendant was prejudiced by the ruling. He had reasonable latitude for cross-examination and defense as to the value of the services, and there is no reason to suppose that he was prejudiced...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 practice notes
  • Whitmore v. Herrick, No. 38636.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 6, 1928
    ...malpractice. For authority to sustain this position reference is made to Kuehnemann v. Boyd (Wis.) 214 N. W. 326;Wurdemann v. Barnes, 92 Wis. 206, 66 N. W. 111;Finke v. Hess, 170 Wis. 149, 174 N. W. 466;Sweeney v. Erving, 35 App. D. C. 57, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 734;Antowill v. Friedmann, 197 ......
  • Whitmore v. Herrick, 38636
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 6, 1928
    ...For authority to sustain this position, reference is made to Kuehnemann v. Boyd, 193 Wis. 588 (214 N.W. 326); Wurdemann v. Barnes, 92 Wis. 206 (66 N.W. 111); Finke v. Hess, 170 Wis. 149 (174 N.W. 466); Sweeney v. Erving, 35 App. D.C. 57 (43 L. R. A. [N. S.] 734); Antowill v. Friedmann, 197 ......
  • Nowatske v. Osterloh, No. 93-1555
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 25, 1996
    ...v. Smirl, 20 Wis.2d 1, 21-22, 121 N.W.2d 255 (1963); Jaeger v. Stratton, 170 Wis. 579, 581, 176 N.W. 61 (1920); Wurdemann v. Barnes, 92 Wis. 206, 208, 66 N.W. 111 (1896); Nelson v. Harrington, 72 Wis. 591, 597, 40 N.W. 228 With the exception of Reynolds, the early cases also adhered to the ......
  • Waddle v. Sutherland, 28430
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 17, 1930
    ...(Minn.), 134 N.W. 120; Teft v. Wilcox, 6 Kans. 46; Walsh v. Sayre [156 Miss. 544] (N.Y.), 52 How. Pr. 334; Wurdeman v. Barnes (Wis.), 66 N.W. 111. All of the instructions, both those given for the plaintiff and the defendant, are to be considered together as one instruction, and are to be i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
29 cases
  • Whitmore v. Herrick, No. 38636.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 6, 1928
    ...malpractice. For authority to sustain this position reference is made to Kuehnemann v. Boyd (Wis.) 214 N. W. 326;Wurdemann v. Barnes, 92 Wis. 206, 66 N. W. 111;Finke v. Hess, 170 Wis. 149, 174 N. W. 466;Sweeney v. Erving, 35 App. D. C. 57, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 734;Antowill v. Friedmann, 197 ......
  • Whitmore v. Herrick, 38636
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 6, 1928
    ...For authority to sustain this position, reference is made to Kuehnemann v. Boyd, 193 Wis. 588 (214 N.W. 326); Wurdemann v. Barnes, 92 Wis. 206 (66 N.W. 111); Finke v. Hess, 170 Wis. 149 (174 N.W. 466); Sweeney v. Erving, 35 App. D.C. 57 (43 L. R. A. [N. S.] 734); Antowill v. Friedmann, 197 ......
  • Nowatske v. Osterloh, No. 93-1555
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 25, 1996
    ...v. Smirl, 20 Wis.2d 1, 21-22, 121 N.W.2d 255 (1963); Jaeger v. Stratton, 170 Wis. 579, 581, 176 N.W. 61 (1920); Wurdemann v. Barnes, 92 Wis. 206, 208, 66 N.W. 111 (1896); Nelson v. Harrington, 72 Wis. 591, 597, 40 N.W. 228 With the exception of Reynolds, the early cases also adhered to the ......
  • Waddle v. Sutherland, 28430
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 17, 1930
    ...(Minn.), 134 N.W. 120; Teft v. Wilcox, 6 Kans. 46; Walsh v. Sayre [156 Miss. 544] (N.Y.), 52 How. Pr. 334; Wurdeman v. Barnes (Wis.), 66 N.W. 111. All of the instructions, both those given for the plaintiff and the defendant, are to be considered together as one instruction, and are to be i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT