Prevosty v. Nichols

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Prevosty v. Nichols

9 Mart. 21

DecidedMarch 15, 1822

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Mart. 21 (Prevosty v. Nichols) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Prevosty v. Nichols, 9 Mart. 21 (La. 1822).

Pincite

Opinion

Porter, J.

This is an action to recover the . . value of services rendered as a physician. It . . „ is objected by the defendant, that the plaintiff , , . has not produced a license authorising him to practise physic.

. . We are of opinion, that where a defendant, in the course of the transaction on which the • . . . action is founded, has acted with the plaintiff

. as possessing a certain character, and ac- , - knowleged the title by virtue ol which he sues, this is prima facie evidence that he is [22]*22entitled to sue; arid if he is not, the burthen of proof is then thrown on the defendant.Philip's Evidence, 171, (edit. 1820.) In the present case, it is clearly established that the plaintiff was employed as a physician, and fre-queutl~ admitted to be such by defendant, and his agents; we therefore think the objection taken to the defendant's right to maintain this action, has not been sustained.

East'n District. March, 1822. Dumotílin for the plaintiff, Duncan for the defendant.

On the merits, the testimony is contradictory. The weight of it is, perhaps, against the conclusions which the jury has drawn; but it does not so preponderate on that side as to permit us to disturb the verdict.

The judgment of the district court should be affirmed with costs.

Martin, J. I concur. Mathews, J. I do also.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the district court be affirmed with costs.

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

Porter, J.

This is an action to recover the . . value of services rendered as a physician. It . . „ is objected by the defendant, that the plaintiff , , . has not produced a license authorising him to practise physic.

. . We are of opinion, that where a defendant, in the course of the transaction on which the • . . . action is founded, has acted with the plaintiff

. as possessing a certain character, and ac- , - knowleged the title by virtue ol which he sues, this is prima facie evidence that he is [22]*22entitled to sue; arid if he is not, the burthen of proof is then thrown on the defendant.Philip's Evidence, 171, (edit. 1820.) In the present case, it is clearly established that the plaintiff was employed as a physician, and fre-queutl~ admitted to be such by defendant, and his agents; we therefore think the objection taken to the defendant's right to maintain this action, has not been sustained.

East'n District. March, 1822. Dumotílin for the plaintiff, Duncan for the defendant.

On the merits, the testimony is contradictory. The weight of it is, perhaps, against the conclusions which the jury has drawn; but it does not so preponderate on that side as to permit us to disturb the verdict.

The judgment of the district court should be affirmed with costs.

Martin, J. I concur. Mathews, J. I do also.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the district court be affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Mart. 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prevosty-v-nichols-la-1822.