Holton v. Kennedy

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Holton v. Kennedy

29 S.E.2d 111, 70 Ga. App. 576, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 50

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided February 4, 1944·No. 30259.·Published

Opinion

Felton, J.

W. D. and E. L. Kennedy sued Eufus Holton in the city court of Soperton on an open account for $198.50. The jury found for the plaintiffs $98.50. The defendant’s certiorari to the superior court was denied, and he excepted.

The Account sued on consisted of the following items: To hospital, 9 days at $5, $45; glucose, $6; operating room and:amfetin, $12; delivery room, anes., $10; drugs and serums, $7.50;. special student nurse, $5; special'nurse’s board, -$6; operatioii. and-after-treatment, $100; 3 days .private nursing, $18; 4 nights private nursihg,- $24. Total $233.50. By cash 4/4/41, $35. Balance' $198.50:; The' evidence sliowed"that a Miss Coxwell was-carried to the plaintiffs’ hospital for an operation; that after she was- operated on the defendant came in arid told "the. superintendent, of .the hospital to-do all''she could for.'.the-patient, and to spare no.expense; that'the plaintiffs,-acting on-the statement.of-the'deféndan't; put on special nurses, and made extra visits after the patient had left the hospital, the value and charge»" for "wlirch'..were, not-proved separately. There was no -evidence’ that”the defendant' authorized the operation, or that any-expense was incurred .because of his alleged statement to the superintendent, except -as to special nursing. There was no evidence that the defendant paid $35 on the account, except hearsay and conjecture. The defendant denied the abcouht, and denied that he made the statement attributed to'him, and denied that he paid $35 on the account. In his brief he concedes that he is liable for the special nurses, and claims credit for the $35 payment'on the account. The jury was authorized'to find'against the defendant for special student nurse, $5; her board, $6; 3 days and 4 nights special nursing, $42; total, $53. The- amount over and above that sum was unauthorized, and it was error to deny the certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

Sutton, P. J., and Parker, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Felton, J.

W. D. and E. L. Kennedy sued Eufus Holton in the city court of Soperton on an open account for $198.50. The jury found for the plaintiffs $98.50. The defendant’s certiorari to the superior court was denied, and he excepted.

The Account sued on consisted of the following items: To hospital, 9 days at $5, $45; glucose, $6; operating room and:amfetin, $12; delivery room, anes., $10; drugs and serums, $7.50;. special student nurse, $5; special'nurse’s board, -$6; operatioii. and-after-treatment, $100; 3 days .private nursing, $18; 4 nights private nursihg,- $24. Total $233.50. By cash 4/4/41, $35. Balance' $198.50:; The' evidence sliowed"that a Miss Coxwell was-carried to the plaintiffs’ hospital for an operation; that after she was- operated on the defendant came in arid told "the. superintendent, of .the hospital to-do all''she could for.'.the-patient, and to spare no.expense; that'the plaintiffs,-acting on-the statement.of-the'deféndan't; put on special nurses, and made extra visits after the patient had left the hospital, the value and charge»" for "wlirch'..were, not-proved separately. There was no -evidence’ that”the defendant' authorized the operation, or that any-expense was incurred .because of his alleged statement to the superintendent, except -as to special nursing. There was no evidence that the defendant paid $35 on the account, except hearsay and conjecture. The defendant denied the abcouht, and denied that he made the statement attributed to'him, and denied that he paid $35 on the account. In his brief he concedes that he is liable for the special nurses, and claims credit for the $35 payment'on the account. The jury was authorized'to find'against the defendant for special student nurse, $5; her board, $6; 3 days and 4 nights special nursing, $42; total, $53. The- amount over and above that sum was unauthorized, and it was error to deny the certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

Sutton, P. J., and Parker, J., concur.

Holton v. Kennedy, 29 S.E.2d 111, 70 Ga. App. 576, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 50 (Ga. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

29 S.E.2d 111 (Holton v. Kennedy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.