People ex rel. Waring v. Monroe C. P.
This text of 4 Wend. 200 (People ex rel. Waring v. Monroe C. P.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
By the Court,
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]*201geons, 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
4 Wend. 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-waring-v-monroe-c-p-nysupct-1830.