Neece v. Joseph
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court, Eastern District; Charles Coffin, Judge; A written contract will be construed against the party who prepares it. 90 Ark. 88; Id. 256. The contract was valid. 15 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law. 979. All facts communicated by a patient to her physician are not privileged. 31 Ark. 693. The contract was unlawful and can not be enforced. 48 Cal. 379; 82 Hun 15. It was contrary to public policy. 144 111. 422; 36 Am.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court, Eastern District; Charles Coffin, Judge; A written contract will be construed against the party who prepares it. 90 Ark. 88; Id. 256. The contract was valid. 15 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law. 979. All facts communicated by a patient to her physician are not privileged. 31 Ark. 693. The contract was unlawful and can not be enforced. 48 Cal. 379; 82 Hun 15. It was contrary to public policy. 144 111. 422; 36 Am. St. R. 459; 52 Pac. 909; 1'D. Chip. 137; 10 Ala. 206; 14 Mont. 467; 43 Am. St. R. 647; 66 Ark. 535; 84 N. Y. 543; 7 Bing. 369; 67 111. 256.
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
T. C. Neece brought this suit in the circuit court against A. W. Shirey to recover an amount alleged to be due him under the following contract:
“Minturn, Ark., Eeb. 27, 1906.
“This is an agreement an a contract made bye Dr. T. C. Neece and John Bennett, bye the consent and bye the request of A. W. Shirey, of the town -of Minturn, wherein the sed T. C. Neece do agree to go with John Bennett and to find and furnish all the proofs that can be established bye the docttors wherein that thed sed Bell Shirey the wyfe of the sed A. W. Shirey did give birth to one child an oup on sed proofs furnished…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Patterson v. DonnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Gillett v. Board of SupervisorsIllinois Supreme Court · 1873
- Quirk v. MullerMontana Supreme Court · 1894
- Hencke v. StandifordSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Manufacturers & Merchants Inspection Bureau v. Everwear Hosiery Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
- Thatcher v. DarrWyoming Supreme Court · 1921
- Reaves Lumber Co. v. Cain-Hurley Lumber Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1925
- Womack v. ManerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1957
- Hare v. McGueCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.