Thomas v. Boruff
Before: Shaw
Synopsis
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order denying a new trial. Lewis R. Works, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
SHAW, J.
Plaintiff, a physician and surgeon, sues in his own behalf and as assignee of H. E. Southworth, also a physician and surgeon, to recover for services rendered in performing, at the special instance and request of defendant, a surgical operation upon Henry Caystile, brother in law of defendant.
Judgment went for plaintiff, from which, and an order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.
The appeal may be disposed of by a consideration of the evidence in support of the finding, “that on or about the 7th day of April, 1913, the plaintiff herein, C. P. Thomas, and the said H. E. Southworth, at the special instance and request of the defendant herein, F. L. Boruff, performed professional services for one Henry Caystile, which said services were and are of the reasonable value of $500, which the defendant herein undertook, promised and agreed to pay for. ’ ’
The evidence tends
to
prove that while Dr. Southworth had theretofore treated Mr, Caystile, he was not under employ
[685]
ment by him at the time the operation was performed; that defendant asked him to perform it, and the defendant, upon being told by Southworth that the latter had spoken to Dr. Thomas regarding the matter, personally requested him to perform the operation, and said: “I want you to give him all the service that is possible, every attention, and I will foot the bills. ’ ’ On the morning when the operation was performed, in conversation with both plaintiff and Southworth, defendant said to the former: “I suppose you have called me in here for the purpose of having me say that I will pay for these services”; and plaintiff said: “Well, if those are the facts, Mr. Boruff, that is all right.” “Well,” said defendant, “you boys go ahead and fix him up the best you can and I will pay the bill.” Upon plaintiff telling defendant that the operation was necessarily attended with great danger and uncertainty, he replied: “Go ahead and do the best you can for him.” Another witness testified that Mr. Boruff said to plaintiff to do the best he could for the man, and he (defendant) would pay the bill. Not only does this testimony strongly tend to establish an original promise on the part of defendant to pay for the services, both of plaintiff and that of his assignor, but the testimony of defendant himself is corroborative of this view. His testimony is that, upon Dr. South-worth requesting him to “stand for the expense,” he said: “Yes, I will stand for the bill if you will allow me to select the man to operate”; to which Dr. Southworth replied: “Well,
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)