*1
46á
money
presence
possession
parties.
has In
of
its
should
the solicitors of
Da-
which
the
discharge
508,
applied
gage debt,
Rice,
in
vidson
al.
Ala.
reduction
of the mort
et
201
78
862.
v.
So.
apply
so
A
rule
refuses to
such mon
different
where the
and
obtains
decree
ey,
court,
mortgagor may
open
par
bill
a'
is rendered in
ties have had
the
maintain
an
or where the
(cid:127)
compel
ample
accounting
redemption,
opportunity
to
and to
amend the
Kirkwood,
application
534,
of
of
funds to the reduction
bill. Hume
216 Ala.
113
the
v.
mortgage
Smith,
613;
28,
al.,
190
et
the
Ala.
funds have
the
powers,
debt.
Johnson v.
So.
Hale v.
201 Ala.
75
Hale
522,
true, though
150;
Cody,
674,
67
401.
the
96
So.
This is
So.
So.
Crowson v.
209 Ala.
acquired
in
tbe defendant
875.
been
corporate
here,
light
not
its
exercise of acts
within
On the
and in
of
record
the
677;
authorities,
opinion
L.
ultra vires. 7 R. C.
these
complainant
we are of
the
are
Meadowcroft,
op-
given
German Nat.
95 Ill.
Bank v.
have been
an
should
Emigh,
124,
137;
portunity
Rep.
Am.
Rankin
218
rul-
35
v.
to amend
to
the
the bill meet
27,
672,
915; Emigh ings
demurrers,
dismissing
U.
30
L. Ed.
S.
S.
54
before
the
Ct.
on the
Earling,
128,
565,
v.
134 Wis.
W.
115 N.
27 bill.
(N. S.)
sustaining
L. R. A.
243.
af-
The decree
the demurrer is
firmed,
dismissing
part
to
National
as
such
banks
matters are
but that
of
decree
domicile,
aside,
citizens
their
of the state of
and the
is
set
and leave
bill
vacated subject
jurisdiction
courts,
granted
complainant
to the
her
of the state
is
to the
amend
to
days
filing
as other
Petri v.
Nat.
citizens.
Commercial
bill within 20
from
the cer-
325,
Chicago,
644,
142
Bank of
U.
parte Jones,
12 S.
S.
Ct.
tificate of the clerk
court with
of this
1144;
failing
register
court, and,
35 L. Ed.
Ex
164 U. S.
so
circuit
691,
222,
601;
do,
17 S. Ct.
41 L. Ed.
Continental
will stand
bill
dismissed..
Memphis
Buford,
Nat. Bank
part,
part reversed,
191
v.
U. S.
Affirmed in
in
ren-
.119,
54,
119;
dered,
24 S. Ct.
48
Ed.
V.
L.
Guthrie
and remanded.
Harkness,
148,
4,
199
26
L.
S.
S. Ct.
50 Ed.
U.
130,
433;
689,
321, ANDERSON,
J.,
4 Ann. Cas.
3 R. C. L.
§§
C.
SAYRE
JJ.,
322.
THOMAS,
concur.
sought
The relief
relates
same
to
parties,
property
and between the same
741)
(118 So.
subject
objection
it is not
is
it
1923,
6526;
multifarious.
Code
Forc
§
v.
BIRMINGHAM BAPTIST HOSPITAL
946.)
(6
Foster,
218,
879;
BRANTON.
Div.
heimer v.
192 Ala.
68 So.
al.,
287,
Webb
al.
et
v. Butler et
192 Ala.
68 Supreme
1,
Court of
1928.
Alabama. Nov.
1916D,
So. 369,
815;
Ann. Cas.
et
Mitchell
Rehearing
6,
Dec.
Denied
Cudd,
162,
al. v.
196 Ala.
calls of en and the case a, held at future decree pronounced open date, not court *3 Taylor Altman, Birmingham, Koenig, & appellee.
for brought THOMAS, un- The action J. by the father statute der the homicide Plaintiff’s cause minor son. of his in the death counts counts. All other is stated two gist the cause -withdrawn. H, as follows: action is contained count negligently them- conducted “Defendants so delivery of said or about the birth selves Coleman, Spain Coleman, Harris Burns proximate plaintiff, as a con- minor son of sequence appellant. Birmingham, Stewart, all of plaintiff’s negligence, said mi- of said son died.” nor Count I reads: negligently them- minor conducted so “Defendants nursing plaintiff’s said about selves in or consequence him, proximate said she went out the hall and Mrs. a to call son that as plaintiff’s charge negligence, minor son died.” Wood told Miss said Stroud that she had my case, that she would call Dr. Garber and. counts, being to said I overruled whenever needed him.” Demurrer general pleaded' issue in defendant consent, give with in evi- short leave account of the oc- witness to what which, pleaded, any immediately birth, preceding, if well curred dence would matter at the legal immediately with defense and constitute thereafter was : give prove plaintiff evidence to leave to o’clock, “When she came in it was about any legal reply The trial resulted in thereto. Wood, my temperature —Mrs. she took —and judgment plaintiff. my room, and asked to leave the *4 patients general hospital me, The duties of to a she had to examine and when she did that go get something eat, I before he left he room Ass’n, him told to and and to are discussed in Tucker v. Inf. Mobile remain the asked her to in 572, 1167; 1915D, 4, R. 191 Ala. So. L. A. 68 got back, me until he and with she said Birmingham Baptist Hospital Branton, v. would, she examine and as soon as he left she did not 326, 79, So. and need not be re- Ala. 216 113 me, and before she left out I asked peated. doctor, laughed her to call the and she and general This court has established a suffering! said I that would be more than I was rights line of demarcation between the civil doctor, I then the last one would need a and she was befor.e of mother and child to be It is the born. baby I until saw the was born. * * * separate concurrent with mother and child injury existence of the push-button by birth; “I parental had a or a buzzer that I and could the my head, pushed that, touch over I and but the no basis for before birth is action the response nobody button. After the child in came to that touch of by personal damages rep in or its the child I was born it heard mother of an child resentative. unborn The strangle crying, like it was I and called a may it, damages recover to her in and ventre nurse, Stroud, they and Miss knew and saw — mere, injury damage sa too “if such is and not happened, had what the she went out in —and ‘ Eran remote.” Stanford v. St. Lonis-San doctor, got hall and called the and she back Ry. Co., 611, 566; cisco Ala. Die Am. 214 108 So. got there, in there before Dr. Gheves Northampton, 14, trich v. Rep. 242; Mass. 138 52 that 10 15 minutes after the or child was was Hospital, I born. heard the child make a noise it v. after St. Luke’s 184 Allaire cry. trying say was born it 359, like was to I can’t 225, 638, Ill. A. 56 N. L. R. Am. E. 4S 75 good whether there was deal of a blood Rep. H St. The demurrers to counts then, after-birth up I there because didn’t raise properly I And the overruled. crying- see, I could hear to but the child rights of this mother in childbirth and about strangling’.” like it was Birmingham Baptist were pital Hos considered in v. Branton, 326, Ala. 113 So. 216 testimony There other wias that the umbil- mother of the fact and wife testified baby’s ical cord was around the time it was neck at the birth; as to that to the the husband she told born, and that this was a cir- get something eat, the and before he left to likely, caused, than cumstance that the The “more requested latter the the to remain with nurse baby practically born dead or so.” to be wife, confined, about and that she to tight baby’s not about the neck. cord was absence, should not the in his to leave room baby The breathe, stated that the never did nurse request acquiesced; which nurse that the though the heart of- the child beat previous said witness to nurse had examined perceptible. was thereafter, departure; the husband’s and be- Dr. Cheves testified that when he called room, fore the left the nurse witness “asked patient’s room; went to the that the “head doctor, laughed her to call a and she born,” was he the child de “finished suffering said” that witness “would be more” livering very the child” with the cord loose doctor”; before she “would need a said that neck, cord, around the cut the and finished nurse was one the last witness “saw until the delivery, baby and “after the the was born baby “pushed born”; was that had witness breathe”; pulsat it the was never did “cord aid, the button or buzzer” to summon and ing minute;” six a times that “the normal response call; pri- there nowas such to that pulse when a child is is cord 120”; born about child, or to the birth of the did “feel she baby “perfectly that was white moving” abdomen; child that in her or womb ; all over” that if death was to stran its due witness, objection over defendant’s and gulation by tight a its reason of cord about exceptions, permitted testify was fol- to as neck, blue; body of the child been would have low's: opinion that was his that it child “ * * * you State whether or not told the dead; was it never or born did breathe there, hall, nurse your student nurse —a breath; —what attempt to are that “stillborn babies was, condition a and asked her call doc- white.” o’clock, tor, before, about 11 or some time or giving refusing of The rules of the or immediately before born? child was general requested affirmative instructions are Aiken, well understood. McMillan v. 205 Stroud, nurse, “I Miss asked -the little student Eire Southern States Garber, right, to call Dr. said all she 4G8 jury ing not disclose does Kronenberg, statement to the Ins. Co. 63; 199 Ala. we ruling court for which Massey, trial Penticost v. Fincher, statements admitted reverse. The would were Allen v. pre- fact issues material questions within of fact— material 946. The 65 So. whether Mrs. hospital complaint by of the sented Branton was admitted patient; father. whether defendants as a hospital amount of the “in la- husband’s or was
knew were informed she subject that made the bor,” duly requested different from bill was call of or that she Hospital physician, Norwood the suit the cliild her was a rea- whether there Jones, This compliance request sonable to such such .showing, tending competent proof or assistance, whether or not child was part show, hos on the phy- to pital a contract bom due assistance of nurse without prem required immediately before, of, in the sician, render services at the time immediately child; ises. after the birth of the for a new trial. We was no motion There whether it was stillborn or was normal and carefully assign- birth; the several have considered at alive and whether the birth it after thereon, arguments perished based ments of error and from the lack of attention —were opinion judgment jury. for the decision are of the (cid:127) *5 be affirmed. the lower court should argument Appellant concludes the affirmative instruction with observation: ANDERSON, J., . and C. SAYRE duty “Certainly owing an un no could JJ„ BROWN, concur. knowledge of its exist child -without born Affirmed. by his in ence.” suit is the father for Rehearing. On juries premises wife, as to his born, him and child and as to his about to be rehearing Application PER CURIAM. duty child, measure was that wife justices concurring. overruled. All the skill, diligence by care, degree of used hospitals community, generally in that express by dertaking. implied the un contract of nurse to examine When the patient requested the husband, the absence tendency evidence was a there request (118 794) the reasonable that the he made return; nurse remain until his with the wife UNION INDEMNITY CO. v. WEBSTER. tendency 050.) (6 Div. there was a in evidence of the patient, stallation they call of the bell Supreme Oct. Court of Alabama. requested pro same, made of the use purpose Rehearing fessional Denied assistance incident Dee. right hospital, of the contract in the given it was not of her call immediate physician presence or the of a nurse at the before, at, crucial moments and after birth of the This was basis for child. duty fact material ascertainment of premises, failure which the for the .of right may There rest his action. refusing error in defend was no reversible charges X. ant’s denominated See W Conway Robinson, authorities below you charge Charge Z, as follows: “I you baby gentlemen if was still- believe plain- you then find a verdict for born tiff,” was, cannot error, for the use without refused you hypoth- “if the words believe” without Walls v. esis oh a belief the evidence. Co., Fertilizer Decatur Birmingham Nelson, Co. B. R. Scott v. L. N. R. R. Co., So. 171: carefully several considered the We have objections exceptions on admission of evidence, find no error. assignment upon of error rested plaintiff’s open- ruling court as to of the