129 Minn. 399 | Minn. | 1915
Plaintiff is a physician in the village of Madison Lake. Defendant resides with his wife and two small children on a farm about three miles from the village. Myrtle Hill, a girl of 14, is defendant’s niece, the daughter of his brother. Her parents were divorced in 1907, and in the summer of 1912 Myrtle came to live with defendant and his wife. In August she was very ill, and defendant’s wife, with his consent, drove with her to plaintiff’s office in Madison Lake. Mrs. Hill stated to plaintiff that “her girl” was sick and that she wanted him to see her. Plaintiff diagnosed the case as blood-poisoning, gave her a treatment then and was given directions by Mrs. Hill how to reach the defendant’s farm. She told plaintiff to do everything necessary to the girl’s recovery. She did not tell him that Myrtle was not her daughter, and he assumed that she was until his second visit to the farm, when he was told that she was the daughter of defendant’s brother. He continued to attend and treat the case, and after the girl’s recovery rendered defendant a bill for his services. Defendant refused to pay, claiming that the debt was that of the girl’s father. This action was then brought and resulted in a decision in favor of plaintiff. After the denial of a motion for a new trial judgment was entered on the decision and defendant appealed therefrom to this court.
Defendant testified that Myrtle was employed as a servant in his family, but the trial court found that she was a member of his household. Defendant’s- wife, when she employed -plaintiff, spoke of Myrtle as “my girl,” and he supposed his patient was her daughter. Nothing was said to indicate to him that she was not, and nothing in the way of informing plaintiff that the person employing him did not expect to be held liable for his services. It is true that the rule that, when one requests the performance of services by another, there is an implied promise to pay for the services rendered, does not apply
Judgment affirmed.
