King v. Forbes Lithograph Manufacturing Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract by a physician for professional services. Writ in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston dated August 5, 1901. On appeal to the Superior Court the case was tried before Maynard, J., who ordered a pro forma verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff alleged exceptions.
1Opinion of the CourtKnowlton, C. J.
The plaintiff is a physician and surgeon in Chelsea. The defendant corporation employs a large number of persons in printing and lithographing at its factory in the same city. One Clayton, an employee of the defendant, was injured in the machinery at1 the factory and taken to the hospital, where the plaintiff attended him. This action is brought to recover compensation for the plaintiff’s services in caring for him.
The only evidence relied on to show a contract of the defendant to pay the plaintiff, is testimony that a superintendent of the defendant’s cartoon department, who was authorized…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad v. McMurrayIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Meisenbach v. Southern Cooperage Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Dale & Banks v. Donaldson Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
- Holmes v. McAllisterMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
- Sweet Water Manufacturing Co. v. GloverSupreme Court of Georgia · 1859
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Pritchard v. Old Colony Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- Sheehan v. Elliott Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1929
- Journal & Tribune Co. v. LonesTennessee Supreme Court · 1914
- Vanderboget v. Campbell Mill Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1914