Pope v. Ellis
This text of 129 S.E. 11 (Pope v. Ellis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1. Where a physician renders professional services to a minor child of a tenant, solely upon the credit of the landlord’s promise to pay for such services, the promise is an original and'not a collateral undertaking, and is not within the statute of- frauds. Easterling v. Bell, 29 Ga. App. 465 (1) (116 S. E. 50), and citations. In the instant case the jury were authorized to find, from the evidence, that the landlord (the defendant) did make, in substance and effect, such a promise.
(a) In such a ease the jury may find that the promisor is liable for the services of the doctor, even though the father of the child treated was ignorant of the contract between the promisor and the doctor, and regarded himself as solely liable for such services. Cordray v. James, 19 Ga. App. 156 (3) (91 S. E. 239).
2. The verdict was authorized -by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
129 S.E. 11, 34 Ga. App. 185, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pope-v-ellis-gactapp-1925.