Gardner v. Tatum
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.
Plaintiff, who is a physician and surgeon, was called in by defendants, and began to treat their *371employee, Cook, on March 8,1883. He continued to visit the patient until October 2,1883. On September 24th he made a demand upon defendants for the sum of $2,386. Thereupon defendants notified him that they considered his charges exorbitant, and that they would not be responsible for any further services in behalf of Cook. He then brought this action to recover the sum of $2,406, alleged to be the reasonable value of his services. The' jury found a verdict in his behalf for the sum of $1,800, and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Swanger v. MayberryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Ex parte FrazerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Ladda v. HawleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by25 opinions
- Berka v. WoodwardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Stockton Plumbing & Supply Co. v. WheelerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- Wise v. RadisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Glass v. Basin & Bay State Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1904
- County of Shasta v. MoodyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.