Lamson v. Varnum
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Conte act, to recover for services as a dentist, rendered to the minor son of the defendant. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Wardwell, J., the defendant, who testified that he did not know the condition of his son’s teeth, or that the work was performed, requested the judge to rule “ that upon all the evidence the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.” The judge ' refused so to rule, and the defendant excepted.
Read the full summary
Conte act, to recover for services as a dentist, rendered to the minor son of the defendant. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Wardwell, J., the defendant, who testified that he did not know the condition of his son’s teeth, or that the work was performed, requested the judge to rule “ that upon all the evidence the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.” The judge ' refused so to rule, and the defendant excepted. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions, which appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtKnowlton, J.
The only exception in this case is to the refusal of the judge to rule “that upon all the evidence the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.” The plaintiff’s claim might be established by proof, either that the work done was authorized by the defendant, or that it was necessary for the health and comfort of the defendant’s minor son, and that the defendant negligently failed to provide for him a dentist, or means to procure the services of a dentist, to do the work.
Upon this bill of exceptions we are not concerned with the weight of the evidence, if there was any evidence proper for the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Angel v. McLellanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819
- Sturtevant v. WallackMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
3Cited by10 opinions
- Auringer v. CochraneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- Finn v. AdamsMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
- Milliken v. WarwickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- Fennell v. RussellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Stimpson v. HunterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.