Holmes v. Fitzpatrick

Decided January 27, 1896

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1896-01-27

Appeal, No. 132, July T., 1895, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., December T., 1893, No. 1401, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit for medical services rendered to defendant’s mother. Before Biddle, J. At the trial plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that defendant agreed to pay plaintiff for any medical services that he might render to defendant’s mother, and that defendant had paid some bills to plaintiff in pursuance of this agreement.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1897

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1896-01-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam,

¶1There was some testimony tending to prove an original undertaking by the defendant to pay for medical services rendered his mother at her request, and a subsequent course of dealing between plaintiff and defendant in pursuance thereof. That testimony presented a question of fact for the jury, and it was accordingly submitted to them by the learned trial judge in a clear and adequate charge, to which no just exception can be taken. The facts upon which the case hinged were established by the verdict; and, the court below having refused a new trial, litigation should have then and there ended. There is nothing in either of the specifications that requires further notice. Neither of them is sustained.

¶2Judgment affirmed.