101 Tenn. 534 | Tenn. | 1898
This suit was instituted by the defendant in error, a physician, to recover from the plaintiff in error a bill for professional services. During the progress of the trial below the defend ant in error offered and there was admitted to the
In this there was no error. It is a matter of common practice in our own courts, and, so far as we know, universally regarded as a sound practice, to permit lawyers to testify as to the value of legal services, without question as to the admissibility of such evidence. 1 Whar. on Ev., Sec. 442; Head v. Hargrove, 105 U. S., 45. And this rule of competency has been extended to a great variety of cases. For instance, it has been held that a merchant may swear to the value of goods (Buckly v. U. S., 4 How. (U. S.), 251); a dealer in clocks as to the value of a clock (Whiton v. Snyder, 88 N. Y., 299); a trader as to the value of land (Bearss v. Capley, 10 N. Y., 93), and a physician as to the value of a nurse’s services (Reynolds v. Robinson, 64 N. Y., 589).
This well-recognized exception to the general rule which excludes opinion testimony, rests upon the ground that the question of value involves skill, or service, or training which the ordinary run of men do not have. 1 Whar. on Ev., Sec. 440; 7 Am. & Eng. Ene. L. (old ed.), Sec. 494.
But it is said that Bruce v. Beall, 99 Tenn., 303, holds otherwise. This is a mistake. In that case the question at issue was, had the master been
There is no error in the record, save in the amount of the judgment, which will be corrected as indicated by a memorandum accompanying this opinion, and, as corrected, it is affirmed.’