People ex rel. Waring v. Monroe C. P.

4 Wend. 200
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1830·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

The note was properly received in evidence, although not specified in the bill of particulars. The use of a bill of particulars is to apprise a party of the specific demands of his adversary when the pleadings are general and leave uncertain what is particularly demanded either in a declaration of notice of set off; and has no application whatever when the demand is specifically set forth in the- pleadings: The charges for the services of the student of the plaintiffs, who were physicians and sur[201] geons, were proper. The statute prohibiting the recovery of fees by unliscenced physicians does not prevent the recovery for such services ; it is a recovery by the masters, who are licenced physicians, for services rendered by the servant, On neither ground was the relator entitled to succeed m ms motion to set aside the report. The mandamus is denied.

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

People ex rel. Waring v. Monroe C. P., 4 Wend. 200 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1830).

4 Wend. 200 (People ex rel. Waring v. Monroe C. P.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Clarke v. Ohio River R.
20 S.E. 696 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1894)
Cudworth v. Gaynor
44 N.W. 1103 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1890)
Wiggins v. . Guthrie
7 S.E. 761 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1888)
Auzerais v. Naglee
15 P. 371 (California Supreme Court, 1887)
Freehling v. Ketchum
39 Mich. 299 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1878)
Eberhardt v. Schuster
6 Abb. N. Cas. 141 (New York Supreme Court, 1877)
Chadbourne v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad
6 Daly 215 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1875)
Vila v. Weston
33 Conn. 42 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1865)
Dean v. Mann
28 Conn. 351 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1859)