p. 125John F. Neilson, Resp’t, v. Charles E. Ray, App’lt.(New York Common Pleas, General Term,Headnote
Parent and child—Liability of parent for medical services—Evidence.In an action brought to recover for medical services rendered to defendant’s daughters, the testimony .showed that both daughters had spoken of defendant as “papa that bills had been sent him for their tuition, and letters received from him enclosing checks in payment: that they were at. boarding school and needed medical attention at the time the services were-rendered, and that during the previous year, when at the same school, plaintiff had rendered them like services and been paid by defendant through the treasurer of the school. Held, that the evidence was sufficient to establish the fact that the persons treated were defendant’s daughters, and impliedly authorized to engage the services.
Appeal from a judgment rendered in the district court of the city of Hew York for the third judicial district.
Howard A. Sperry, for.app’lt; Q. A. G. Barnett, for resp’t.
This action was brought by the respondent as assignee of Dr. James R.“Wood to recover the sum of seventy seven dollars for medical services rendered by the assignor to the daughters of the appellant. The latter was personally served with the summons, appeared in the action and interposed a general denial. This imposed on the plaintiff in that action the duty of showing by evidence that the persons treated were the daughters of the defendant, that the services rendered were necessary, and some assent or authority by or from him, Poock v. Miller, 1 Hilton, 108, or that there was an absolute necessity for the immediate rendition of the services, where the law raises an implied promise to pay in consideration of the benefit conferred on the parent by such services, although rendered without the parent’s actual request.
On the trial defendant’s counsel apparently relied upon the plaintiff’s inability to prove that the-persons treated were defendant’s daughters, and were treated by his assent or authority. We think the evidence sufficiently establishes the fact that they were-
p. 126Ms daughters. A witness was produced, who testified that she had given music lessons to one of them at their home in Harlem; that she had then heard both of them speak of the defendant as
u papa ”; had sent him bills for her tuition; had received letters from him enclosing checks in payment, thus showing he had at least assumed the parental relation to them which carries with it the moral duty of caring for their health. It was testified that they needed medical attention at the time the services were rendered for throat difficulties and colds. They were then not at home, but at school at the Convent of the Sacred Heart, whére they had been the previous year, and where the doctor had attended one of them, for which attendance he had been paid by defendant through the treasurer of the convent. The services having been rendered on the same request, and under the same ■circumstances as those to recover for which this action is brought, we think sufficiently established an implied authority to engage the services. The justice has found in plaintiff’s favor and his ■finding cannot be disturbed.
Henry v. Betts, 1 Hilt, 156. In
Baker v.
Keen, 2 Stark., 501, less evidence was considered sufficient to warrant a jury in finding such implied authority existed, for it was held that evidence showing the father had placed a ■son at a military college and paid his expenses there was sufficient to warrant the presumption of authority from the father to ■order regimentals and other articles for his equipment. We think the plaintiff made out a
prima facie case at least, and if the defendant had a valid explanation to offer, or evidence to rebut the presumption of authority, he should have produced it.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Bisohoff,. J., concurs._