Pfeiffer v. Michelsen
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Lillibridge, J. Assumpsit by Gertrude Pfeiffer against Henry Michelsen for services as nurse. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. The defendant had boarded with the plaintiff since the year 1886. At first he paid $5 per week, then $7. The defendant was adjudged incompetent, and a guardian appointed, July, 1894. Plaintiff brought suit to recover for services as nurse from June 1, 1891, to November 13, 1894. She claimed $15 per week.
Read the full summary
Error to Wayne; Lillibridge, J. Assumpsit by Gertrude Pfeiffer against Henry Michelsen for services as nurse. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. The defendant had boarded with the plaintiff since the year 1886. At first he paid $5 per week, then $7. The defendant was adjudged incompetent, and a guardian appointed, July, 1894. Plaintiff brought suit to recover for services as nurse from June 1, 1891, to November 13, 1894. She claimed $15 per week. Her testimony tended to show that he was afflicted with a loathsome disease, which caused running sores, which she dressed…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
(after stating the facts). The theory of the defendant is that there could be no recovery upon an implied contract, for the reason that plaintiff was paid a full and specified sum per week for board, and that the jury should have been instructed that they must find for the defendant unless an express contract to pay for nursing was proven. The court might with propriety have *615given this instruction, since three witnesses testified positively to a promise on the part of the defendant to pay for these services, and there was no testimony to the contrary. Aside, however, from the testimony of an…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Sowash v. EmersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
- In Re Dunnigan's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1937