Sims v. New York College of Dentistry

New York Supreme Court

Sims v. New York College of Dentistry

42 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 344

DecidedFebruary 15, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 42 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 344 (Sims v. New York College of Dentistry) 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.

Bluebook

Sims v. New York College of Dentistry, 42 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 344 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Pratt, J.:

At the time of the commencement of this action the plaintiff was a minor, but she became of age prior to the trial of the case. No guardian was appointed. This omission did not affect the jurisdiction of the court. The omission to have a guardian appointed at the time of the commencement of the action was an irregularity merely. By pleading to the merits this irregularity was waived. When the plaintiff attained her majority the necessity for a guardian ceased. (Smart v. Haring, 14 Hun, 276; Rutter v. Puckhofer, 9 Bosw., 639.) The plaintiff must therefore be regarded as rechas m Gloria. No question was made on the trial that the persons in charge of the [345]*345infirmary were not the servants and agents of the defendant. It was admitted that the college and infirmary were one and the same. The sole question in the case was one of malpractice; whether the plaintiff’s injuries and sufferings were caused by unskillful treatment on the part of the dentist who operated upon her. There is ample evidence in the case to sustain the finding of the jury, and the instructions of the learned judge upon the trial were clear and full upon the question involved.

"We find no error in the case and the judgment must be affirmed^ with costs.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Dtkman and Pratt, JJ.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs

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

Pratt, J.:

At the time of the commencement of this action the plaintiff was a minor, but she became of age prior to the trial of the case. No guardian was appointed. This omission did not affect the jurisdiction of the court. The omission to have a guardian appointed at the time of the commencement of the action was an irregularity merely. By pleading to the merits this irregularity was waived. When the plaintiff attained her majority the necessity for a guardian ceased. (Smart v. Haring, 14 Hun, 276; Rutter v. Puckhofer, 9 Bosw., 639.) The plaintiff must therefore be regarded as rechas m Gloria. No question was made on the trial that the persons in charge of the [345]*345infirmary were not the servants and agents of the defendant. It was admitted that the college and infirmary were one and the same. The sole question in the case was one of malpractice; whether the plaintiff’s injuries and sufferings were caused by unskillful treatment on the part of the dentist who operated upon her. There is ample evidence in the case to sustain the finding of the jury, and the instructions of the learned judge upon the trial were clear and full upon the question involved.

"We find no error in the case and the judgment must be affirmed^ with costs.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Dtkman and Pratt, JJ.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sims-v-new-york-college-of-dentistry-nysupct-1885.