Kelly v. Cunningham

Supreme Court of Alabama

Kelly v. Cunningham

36 Ala. 78

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 15, 1860

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 36 Ala. 78 (Kelly v. Cunningham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kelly v. Cunningham, 36 Ala. 78 (Ala. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

A. J. WALKER, O. J.

“Whenever the bodily cr mental feelings of an individual are, material tobe .proved, the usual expressions of such feelings, made at the time in question, are original evidence. So, also, the representations by a sick person, of the nature, symptoms and effects of the malady under which he is laboring at the time, are received as original evidence.” — Rowland v. Walker, 18 Ala. 749; Eckles & Brown v. Bates, 26 ib. 655; Phillips v. Kelly, 29 ib. 628; Holloway v. Cotten, 33 ib. 529; [80]*80Blackman v. Johnson, 35 ib. 252. These declarations aro admitted, to the extent indicated, on a principle of necessity, and as a part of the res gestee, whether made to a. physician or not, and whether made by a slave or a free person. But the principle does not include declarations which do not describe the feelings of the declarant, or the symptoms and effects of his malady, but which simply declare the existence and past .duration of a disease, in the detection and proper denomination of which some degree of skill ia necessary. The declarations of' the slave, “that he had the dropsy, that it was an old disease, and had been on him a long time”, were' inadmissible!

[2.] The plaintiff’s right to recover the reasonable charges of the physicians who attended upon the diseased slave, .did not depend upon the fact of his having paid them. — Garrett & Hill v. Logan, 19 Ala. 344; Miller v. Garrett, 35 ib. 96.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

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

A. J. WALKER, O. J.

“Whenever the bodily cr mental feelings of an individual are, material tobe .proved, the usual expressions of such feelings, made at the time in question, are original evidence. So, also, the representations by a sick person, of the nature, symptoms and effects of the malady under which he is laboring at the time, are received as original evidence.” — Rowland v. Walker, 18 Ala. 749; Eckles & Brown v. Bates, 26 ib. 655; Phillips v. Kelly, 29 ib. 628; Holloway v. Cotten, 33 ib. 529; [80]*80Blackman v. Johnson, 35 ib. 252. These declarations aro admitted, to the extent indicated, on a principle of necessity, and as a part of the res gestee, whether made to a. physician or not, and whether made by a slave or a free person. But the principle does not include declarations which do not describe the feelings of the declarant, or the symptoms and effects of his malady, but which simply declare the existence and past .duration of a disease, in the detection and proper denomination of which some degree of skill ia necessary. The declarations of' the slave, “that he had the dropsy, that it was an old disease, and had been on him a long time”, were' inadmissible!

[2.] The plaintiff’s right to recover the reasonable charges of the physicians who attended upon the diseased slave, .did not depend upon the fact of his having paid them. — Garrett & Hill v. Logan, 19 Ala. 344; Miller v. Garrett, 35 ib. 96.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 Ala. 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-cunningham-ala-1860.

Opinion

A. J. WALKER, O. J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack