Rankin v. Beale
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Morgan Circuit Court. — Hon. D. W. Shackleford, Judge. The court erred in giving defendant’s instruction number 2. No such implication arises where one calls in a physician to attend upon a person to whom he is under no legal obligation to furnish necessaries. Meisenbachv. Cooperage Co., 45 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Morgan Circuit Court. — Hon. D. W. Shackleford, Judge. The court erred in giving defendant’s instruction number 2. No such implication arises where one calls in a physician to attend upon a person to whom he is under no legal obligation to furnish necessaries. Meisenbachv. Cooperage Co., 45 Mo. App. 232; Veitch v. B/ussell, 3 Ad. &E11.,(N. S.) 927; Sellen v. Norman, 4 Car. 80; Crane v. Baudouine, 55 N. Y. 256; Smith v. Watson, 14 Yt. 332. This rule holds good between father and son. Boyd v. Sappington, 4 Watts. (Pa.) 247.
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
Plaintiff sued the defendantjm an open account. Defendant filed a counterclaim on account of certain medical services and medicines, which defendant as a physician furnished Joe Rankin, a son of plaintiff, *326and who was at the time twenty-three years old. The evidence in defendant’s behalf tended to prove that plaintiff sent for and requested the defendant to come to plaintiff’s house and prescribe for his son, and there was testimony in plaintiff’s behalf contradicting this. There was also evidence to the effect that after the services were performed plaintiff promised to pay therefor and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Meisenbach v. Southern Cooperage Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Boyd v. SappingtonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
3Cited by5 opinions
- Morrell v. LawrenceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- State Ex Rel. Kramer v. CarrollMissouri Court of Appeals · 1958
- Crowell v. DonohoMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- Fruin v. GlassnapSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1922
- Morfit v. ThompsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1926