Lind v. Zeisel

Ohio Court of Appeals

Lind v. Zeisel

159 N.E. 849, 26 Ohio App. 439, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 497, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 513

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 16, 1927

Docket8052

StatusPublished

This text of 159 N.E. 849 (Lind v. Zeisel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lind v. Zeisel, 159 N.E. 849, 26 Ohio App. 439, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 497, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 513 (Ohio Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

VICKERY, J.

Samuel Lind brought an action in the Cleveland Municipal Court to recover from Henry Zeisel, for certain medical services performed on behalf of a daughter, twenty-four years of age. Mrs. Zeisel called the doctor and he performed an operation, later the daughter was again taken to the hospital and a second operation was performed by Dr. Lind. Judgment was rendered against the doctor, and error was prosecuted. The Court of Appeals held:- — ■

1. Nothing was said by anybody as to payment for the services until after the second operation was performed; and when the doctor spoke to the father and mother, both dis-viaimed financial responsibility.

2. There is nothing in the record to show that the parents requested the doctor to serve the daugher; and if there were, there was no promise afterwards to pay this bill.

3. It does not appear that the father knew that the doctor was called; and there is nothing in the record to show that he acquiesced in it or paid for it afterwards.

4. In order to hold the father in this case, there must be a promise express or implied. There being neither in the record, judgment is affirmed.

Judgment is affirmed.

(Sullivan, PJ.; Levine, J., concur.)

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