Carraway v. Graham, 118 So. 807

453 any rights injunction, appellees hereby maturity, ma legal waive rate obtains after injunction bring may Co., have suit on the turity. 205 Motor v. Standard Zimmern appellant appellant given by bond from and release proof 580, was no Ala. So. 88 743. any liability arising any breach of from interest, Michigan and therefore the no rate injunction hereby by appellant, bond Camp been allowed. interest should senting may record be entered 240, Co., Ala. 2 So. 287. Randle 81 v. tion Sec the court.” rate 1928 makes the Code of 7688 of the still of states, published court is as interest interest, outlined is entitled as legislative acts, presumptive evidence of opinion. foregoing interest; does not authorize but rehearing is denied. judicial knowledge rate. courts take Co., supra. Camp v. Randle the bonds are secured The fact that property mortgage Alabama does not. obligation in an- to hear them into convert terest at the Alabama (118 807) So. maturity. rate after (6 12.) v. CARRAWAY GRAHAM. Div. Savings Beckley, Co. 137 United States Supreme 1, 33, Court Alabama. Nov. 1928. Ala. L. A. Am. St. So. 62 R. 97 19; Rep. Id., Ala. So. 655. Rehearing Denied Dec. 1928. must be As this reversed as to the case rate court of interest allowed maturity, remanded, in the bonds after Michigan proven. rate order that the of 1923. Section Code circuit is affirmed The decree court except respects, in all as to allowance this, reversed, interest, and, the decree is and the cause is remanded. part, Affirmed in and remand- reversed appeal equally be- ed. Cost of to he divided appellees. appellant tween the THOMAS,- BOUDDIN, GARDNER, FOSTER, JJ., concur. J., SAYRE, except to the all concurs cost,

taxation of all thinks the cost against appellant. appeal should be taxed BROWN, J., except re in all concurs mandment of de the cause. thinks the maturity allowing cree interest from the up

the bonds the time of the decree should reversed, rendered, be ing here disallow period; this, on the au interest thority Forcheimer, of Insurance Co. 5 So. 870. Rehearing.

Upon suggested ANDERSON, upon It is re- O. J. hearing has not treated assignment of as to the action error injunction. True, dissolving

trial court question inadvertently this when overlooked dealing important ones, more decision of same can serve useful purpose, except to whether not the determine respondent upon has a cause of action injunction bond, has been made a question by appellee by express moot damages right waiver of to sue there- growing injunc- out of the issuance appellee says: tion. The brief for the order, however, “In to relieve this complications dissolution of

45á Scrivner, Stokely, Dominick & appellant.

Birmingham, for suffering with, plain- he was then tiff avers that defendant so himself in or ducted about his treatment of undertaking under said that,” Booking etc. to the evidence in the may safely record it be said that origin illness its in re- a blow kick by engaged game him ceived in while a plaintiff schoolboy but, in- football — — dubitably, plaintiff was not taken to defend- ant in to' be treated exclusive for sense injury hip, nor did defendant under- specifically take to treat for an in- hip, complaint may be- intend; construed to that the fact is plaintiff, having by been treated faculty Goodwater, lived, medical where he by, Argo Wilson, wit, Drs. carried Wilkinson, Birmingham, Horace C. hospital on in their advice defendant’s Harden, Goodwater, appellee. for John A. Birmingham diagnosed in order his case be proper surgical treatment ad- ministered, kept and this fact be should considering allegation mind when complaint, accurately fails which describe plaintiff’s grievance, any. if The briefs indicate action of the trial court on defendant’s motion for new parties present- trial ing is considered the question the most serious raised on the accordingly record. We have treated it place.* the first per On trial the court below the plaintiff, appellee, to, son of was exhibited jury, and, on the submission of the for cause court, in this review plaintiff’s offer to exhibit the and the several scars left i>erson renewed; his treatment was but the court proposed inspection; declined to make the ruling and now contends on for the motion a new trial should not be con appeal, on sidered the reason that has it the whole court appeared not before case as it court. The contention be The court has cannot allowed. before evidence, plain all the the course of which again carefully tiff’s wounds were time and described, may they and it be assumed that left commensurate scars. And the fact importance only these scars became of damages, in the admeasurement of it should found event be been negligent inflicted in the course treatment at the hands of defendant. of conceivable, course, may some such case there be scars to the such location or extent as to disclose lay malprac observer even the fact of ; entirely but we are tice clear to the conclu cause does not this furnish an sion ample ex wrong, sort of of that exhibition, permissible proposed if by appellee against appeal, seriously SAYRE, Action J. on which be doubt malpractice. allegation Appellate appellant Procedure, (Elliott’s 620), § ed complaint phy- is that “defendant was have contributed would derstanding an un Ala., surgeon county, question in Jefferson involved sician and assignment such undertook for hire and reward of error. * * * injury requirement for an to treat is no of law that point. appendix, had formed at should have infallible defendant . professional diagnosis Plaintiff thinks showed in trouble. or treatment competence. unable exer are to concur undertakes to A judgment. surgical experts, ordinary diligence medical and skill in cise at least examined, a number were have nipt care whom the treatment of his —such deposed. work, The medical shown be in the same skill as properly pursuing gen general neighborhood, standard admitted in evidence the same (Barfield Infirmary, ordinarily' supra), speaks practice, of such line exercise eral like abscesses the left side. Defendant found cases. 215 Ala. Moore v. place held, no abscess- incision. then So. and cases cited. I-Ie cannot proceed- express agreement, closed the wound the left side and the absence of to have ed, through cure, opening and, a median below the warranted a sonable care and if exercises rea he navel, explore cavity. skill, to He is not liable for an er abdominal judgment treatment, appendix diagnosis tangible found the and (cid:127)ror of or the other organs subject normal. But exu where the rea be there was an course is Infirmary, dation of a straw-colored fluid from doubt. Ala. the inci sonable Barfield v. 191 made, 553, showing inflammation; 30, 1916C, sions and 68 So. Ann. A this indicated Cas. 1097. thickening swelling and he found hard that an fol a of unfortunate result has peritoneal cavity proof. wall lowed does of the abdominal not' shift the of burden just upper point negli complaining gence Smith, inside of jshow still must bone, diagnosis rear, towards the size or treatment. Moore v. about half the hand, yet head, supra. Keeping forego of had which not come mind the to a and, liability through to drain area the back rules of well established —rules through jurisdictions cavity, proceed rather than the abdominal he in this and other to —we third, amade incision for statement of our consideration of the the introduction of a case n presented by kidney. another drain under the left Plain the record. complains incision, tiff of gaine this third and Plaintiff had been hurt in of a speaks of it as football, neighborhood if it had been made into the had received a kick on or the. kidney, but the record does not afford hip, of left but continued for basis that notion. days, though suffering school for two' some at pain this, plain enough, And' here we note the fact that several it seems because his — appellant’s assignments predi game. of play of error are father forbidden him to giv-e cated on the refusal of Thq a at Goodwater treated him for specially requested charges week, being then, opinion the effect and both of alleged there was no facts. For fendant a opened, evidence of certain the abdomen would need to be him to defendant’s At that time he was took- example, hospital Birmingham. to de refused at charge requested suffering intensely. form: this His pulse dangerously temperature and were charges “The court that there is no high. critically He was ill. Defendant had evidence in this case that defendant cut into plaintiff’skidneys.” either of plaintiff’s gave urine tested. The latter blood and indication; high but blood showed a no evidence, no such and this leucocytes, indicating general pus á count infection. at charge might something contributed operate determined to Defendant jury’s understanding of the issues to be ground Plaintiff finds fault on the once. decided. Alabama In v. Consolidated Co. X-ray picture was taken in advance. that Defendant Heald, 273, 184, 171 Ala. 55 So. the court held thought there was time language:, this and, X-rays, be, however may, X-ray help stage “While trial courts in' and some would show cases give should, instructions, such it has been re- the other- This was also .of ful. peatedly held this court that the lower court' day surgeons who testified in Next the cause. refusing requested will not be reversed for X-ray nothing taken, picture's were disclosed charges.” clips plain more than the with which Defendant, tiff’s wounds had closed. a following: Some the cases are the Jef- surgeon years’ experi of 25 State, 434; ferson v. 110 20 So. Ala. Mont- history; ence, plaintiff’s examined him took gomery Ry. Rice, Street 142 v. Ala. 38 So. (testimony defendant, foot” head to “from Montgomery 857; Ry. Street 146 father); plaintiff, and had 757; Burns, Ala. 39 So. Tutwiler pro tests made before the above-mentioned ceeding 455; 386, So. Ala. New Connellsville Co. v. operate. found no exterior Kilgore, 205; 162 Ala. 50 So. A. G. S. v. signs made an incision on of hurt. He 737; Yount, Birmingham So. just pubic symphysis, e., above the i. sidé left the Poole, v. no these gest 169 Ala. 52 So. 937. We intend point pubic anterior lower bones departure from the established rule for the the abdomen—this reason cases; only sug- we intend other greatest pain. tension and found some charges sort in some cases this plaintiff was that was suf His best may purpose. useful serve a abscess, fering ruptured. caused from an a operations From these doubt —no á57 quoted that effect. product fluid, he But this one of the straw-colored release Sylacauga picture aft- relief, taken at plaintiff had some of inflammation — home, plaintiff and weeks temperature. er returned pulse improvement some But five or six operations plaintiff com- after days later obstruction supposed plains. hardly be imperatively can developed, de- the bowel information, though been more it had even Defendant, after manded immediate relief. fact, trustworthy definite could than was communicating plaintiff’s father at Good- diag- have afforded assistance approval, getting water, made anoth- got days plaintiff eight nosis hurt incision, avoiding nine the first median er median plaintiff game. That the football incision, signs infection, because it showed greatly, left suffered his wounds and that obstruction, and At found corrected it. required scars, always or that will point matting one of the small intestines bandage though to wear a that does defendant, found, — as- with the pear except possible as a result Talley, Appellee sistance of argues corrected. of some of the witnesses as an. thing rough handling of inference from the age a band- fact that he wore exploratory opera- during the intestines charg- at the time of the trial-—cannot be tion caused this trouble. evidence against defendant, ed unless he may handling or that such condition follow misjudged or treated case. One inflammatory product result as speaks hernia; brief hut there was no evi- any event, always ditions, and, hernia; dence that suffered from result; chance but the risk must was'only hernia some- charge taken or the this left to die. To surgical operations times results from such as malpractice in to on the evidence result plaintiff undergone. opin- Our decided charged, record, if it was mulct was that, Crotwell, ion is as in Robinson v. it, That, take we defendant on a surmise. 197, 210, jury Ala. 57 So. were moved permitted. of another At the end cannot be by plaintiff’s suffering more his scars— and — n dispute in week or exact time is two—the which were exhibited more than once to the swelling appeared a left and inside of above jury by a consideration of the law —than days hip bone, was which after some upon and facts which the result should pus opened, and three four ounces been made to turn. out, small slivers of with it some and drained words, enough, In other it is clear evidently, hip which, bone, came from the jury found defendant to be answerable recover, began plaintiff at and hone. Then the time damages on their in. observation of his con regained previ- his of the trial upon finding dition the trial rather than weight, had returned to his studies.' ous and negligence diagnosis or treatment plaintiff’s statement We have made this of a case which when it came under his of it from defendant’s treatment ease and information difficulty observation involved both extreme record, not contained in the diagnosis great danger patient. to the judg- sufficiently, detail, in our utmost imputed negligence No medical man has of the contention the merits ment disclose proof defendant. The burden of was on the they appear parties us. between the plaintiff. ipsa The doctrine of res did not concede that assume or cannot apply. supra. Moore v. judg Our differently appeared in reason have ment is that the should have been con jury- by finding expert trolled their testi Dr. senior and the W. Wilson Dr. John mony testimony rather than Cunning- Goodwater,' Argo, Drs. both of —who, import of course knew of the real Mason, Wilson, Hogan, Talley, and the ham condition, of his certainly noth junior Argo, of whom was Dr. the latter ing slept of what was done while he hospital, from an and as- connected with defendant’s father, amesthetic —or that of his 'who operations stood of which sisted at the operating room, himself, experts at the door of the complains, in the senior Dr. but not where all and defendant except surgery were two there nurses, and two Dr. John W. Wilson and attendant viewpoint medicine, Argo, practiced and from that undertook who operating surgeon major cause, surgery, to differ and his testified expert defendant, except assistant as to what was done or the Dr. John W. all for the it was done. order which Wilson. None of them —and this includes proceed facts or W. Wilson—testified John The court here should opinions great caution; would authorize the inference but it leave no should evident lay unrighted. that the defendant was in- mind “This mistake court has not re profession competent practice duty neglected power”— his or had nor nounced its its diagnosed ought certainly, or treated to do so—“to revise testify juries This did ease. Dr. Wilson that one of and the conclusions of the verdicts of trial X-ray pictures questions possibly judges fact, where, evidence show- thickening opinion, making all ed a and diseased condition of our ances and allow indulging hip hearsay by plain- loft bone. A all reasonable intend statement below, is, effect; in favor of the court father to the same ments we reach tiff’s was judg- country get stumped finding I mean if we we a clear doctors conclusion doctors, you send them off town know.” wrong.” Lumber Co. Twinn Tree ment are 505, 569, Day, 915. 61 So. forepart In the his examination was said no It cannot be say: counsel did this witness in the evidence its tenden contradiction cies pain complained “The that he of was in his ; jury, question was one for for decision region hip. left side He was com- place, Never the first at least. plaining hip pain exclusively, his left side theless, ultimately reasonable and within thigh bone I and liis on the side. could left right duty limits it is the operating ap- see reason for on him for finding jury. to revise the The case pendicitis in, in the condition nor for peculiar bar was in sensé one to be de kidney operating on him for ex- trouble or to expert testimony. great pose kidnej's. cided on the [Record 31.] was noth- There weight testimony me, about his condition indicated to was with the de physician, operated fendant, he should be on for and our that the motion pendicitis. [Record 31.]” granted. for new trial should have been necessity for a further The witness further said: assigned. sideration the errors creating “I have an idea to what Reversed and remanded. pus there boy’s system, in this and it seemed like concavity within the abscess ANDERSON, J.,C. GARDNER hip I mean an ab- bone. that there was JJ., BOULDIN, concur. hip scess on inside between the bone and peritoneal cavity. (sic), the bar outside the peritoneal cavity If it Rehearing. had boon On likely most that he in a would have dead SAYRE, J. We have heretofore said: little while.” “The at Goodwater treated him This witness said: also then, being for a week and both of took, pain opened, joint the to abdomen would thigh need to be him “The was about the hospital Birmingham.” knee, touch, defendant’s and it was tender to but more painful tender, it, than Ias remember and that pus sys- Counsel for submits indicated to me “that there is that was in his somewhere, my judgment tem that the and it was not a line physicians then in this record to the effect both that * * * pus system'. was inside of his opinion at Goodwater were of the Eugene (Dr. Argo witness) “We and the came opened.” that We on the abdomen would need to be pus coming to the conclusion that this was from presume lay epiphasis it was intended to * * * inside, the and not on the outside. His “both,” or, objection possibly, the is to the getting worse, kept condition was and if it had Reading mere form of the statement. the * * * getting on In afternoon the worse he would have died. again,' Eugene record Argo, we find Dr. that my judgment Sunday aas that charge who had ease in get Good- I came to the conclusion that to pus boy’s body, system, (plaintiff) water mingham, out until he of this we was taken to Bir- operate, We failed to locate this go would have to pus. inside deposed to find the as follows: * * '* pus, Hugh “I , Graham, was called to see and he why Birmingham.” that we him to is sent pain abdomen, had a side. in his lower on the left * * * inflammatory This condition was quoted exceptions, We have the bill of bowel, in his lower left lower left side. Down original opinion while the we did not think * * * vicinity groin. the of the necessary quote copiously, now, it to we pronounced was more in the abdomen than in examination, judg- after further our reiterate * * * hip. (meaning Carraway the and Dr. ment the that at Goodwater were himself) didn’t know at that time”—the opinion that the abdomen would need to be Carraway’s time of Dr. examination—“that he opened. (plaintiff) (As game. had boon hurt in a football that, however, subjected operation to there was Plaintiff conflict the to the was * '* * evidence.) denied that. I complains said which he in order to learn his what my judgment that tion of the abdomen. Dr. Wilson W. seat of the the inflamma- trouble was and to remove the cause of that part in the lower bowel. That was is a trouble, expert whatever it be. The (meaning Dr. Jno. surgical opinion medical and was that the myself Wilson) and concluded that in- the operation indicated, was and whether or not was on the flammation to be cut inside and that it had erroneously thought plaintiff’s defendant open get it, why to to is we pendix was the cause of his surgeon.” brought condition is of no him ato consequence. Cunningham Dr. Wilson, a sur- geon Wilson, great experience distinguished Dr. John W. who on saw occasion, just reputation, having hearing been before after called a statement of trip Birmingham, deposed among to oth- the er condition when he was carried to things: hospital, defendant’s testified to his it any that would be the best doc- Eugene (meaning Argo himself) “We Dr. inflammatory tor that inside; there was thing some surgical at the conclusion that it arrived case, was a (plaintiff) “to relieve that he and that should be referred inflammation By surgeon. saying surgical case, it was a .you to go would have to on the inside to do it. intentionally, he effect, though * * * you pain call the in what If was way inference conceded, opening the” bowel, the lower toe that was would lower left operation appellant into blundered abdomen, ’the and if of the l>art kidneys. is on, for, The evidence undoubtedly if not spot, in- would tenderest only purpose of the effect that go clear to spot to in order dicate that operate was, not to the back part incision into opinions These find trouble.” drainage provide kidneys, Cunningham on the corroborated Wilson were Dr. of by swelling region in the ab- ap- Argo, Talley, Mason, Hogan, J. R. Drs. practice wall, Carraway. and this dominal and the defendant expert who testified proval original opinion witnesses quotes The brief sought appellant Evidently subject. on that follows: any of that character inference avoid appendix (defendant) “He oth- found the subject charge asking special on that tangible organs normal, er an supplied by plaintiff’s but there was opinion, original we referred which and it was heretofore (italics of a exudation straw colored fluid we connection that attorney) from the inci- subject. indicated inflammation.” referred to this sions made and this complains Appellee has chart, hospital quotes brief then The when, so far as concerns denied relief swelling handwriting, as follows: the defendant’s developed in or on his side compensa- incision, organs hip, he “Left ex- above was entitled rectus abdominal except quan- amined, nothing pain abnormal found to endure on tion for he caused tity again supplied.) (Italics of clear appellant’s fluid.” undue account reason delay swelling opening allow so as to that “this clear fluid— brief asserts escape pus Eor accumulated. therein the that an absence of straw colored—indicated swelling the condition cavity.” But trouble the abdominal bone, appellee’s Wilson Dr. John W. witness Moynihan, the statement of Dr. “Abdominal responsibility. acquits appellant operations,” (swelling is that “This cedema only complaint is that hear as to that we produced by watery fluid. Inter- Webster’s repeat- appellant, attention Diet.) presence nat. is a sure indication edly swelling testify delayed one of the called to degree pus high inflammation of a and that long nurses —who did not too — part beneath; present is and it open expert or other it. is no being made in evidence that the incision appellant longer than waited place.” Birming- Argo J. R. Appellee’s operation ought. first ham testified: showed—with- November 30th. The evidence side, incision “This was made the left down dispute, as recall it—that out we now cavity, opened and when we the -abdo- only of location of external evidence the why men, a straw colored fluid that was pellee’s seen Dr. Car- time to be trouble at that was out, had some which indicated ho came trouble groin in the or lower left abdomen. inflammatory there, indicated an raway's thought testimony is —mean- .condition.” ing recollection, as we understand— best January 10th, opened swelling Carraway that he the effect. to the same testified Dr. Cunningham and that until then he was undecided as testified: Dr. Wilson swelling. evi- This is the caused the what incision, making rectus except and “In a left point. upon bearing We feel this dence quantity of a clear- found abnormal is schoolboy reasonably appellee, a sure that fluid, indicate that there was some that would expert. inflammatory age,- years Nor is not a medical inside.” condition 17 Taking of this matter fair view are we. we what fixed on the differ- mind not then ground Our was can, find in it no sufficient we colored “clear fluid” “straw ence between verdict, and the assessment of dam- for the prefer fluid,” any, follow if and we now very strongly ages that dam- indicate would distinguished opinion medical and sur- the gical ages alone. assessed this account wer.e authority either sort to the effect that general, appellee Speaking to the case any quantity in the of fluid in considerable 425, Winston, Neb. refers to Johnson v. 68 inflammation. abdomen indicates 607, commissioner, N. writ- 94 W. where the complains Appellee application court, ing on this the observed that “we cannot for opinion original is mistaken its asser- the overlook the of fact well-known actions plaintiff speaks always [malpractice] incision of the third tion that kind it is diffi- this kidney.” professional testimony “as if it been made into the to obtain at all.” cult appellee original presume page 12 the brief We the commissioner intended to ex- On kidneys.” operation press opinion speaks get on the of “the the it is hard to medi- any testify against is not to be of matter considered this their brethren But importance men to cal express time, profession. and was mentioned We need no at this the by present original that, for the reason fact in the case is that in the that. to we find Wilson, testimony W. of the six John questions addressed upon appellee the fact that for defendant reason to seemed to dwell who testified kidneys, validity of the or the thus their candor of their had no disease doubt 460 opinions, they him, injury nor we have doubt that the must show that the produced by correctly skill, was such want of it is the facts understood when testi- not’to be inferred.” fying in the cause. by be no There will denial court And further he wrote: the case one for was submission ' physician jury “A place. not a to practice is warrantor If of cures. in the first Under the maxim, ipsa loquitur’ applicable the to ‘res were state, in this a scintilla of evidence this, like and a failure to cure wore a.case support case suffices to take evidence, slight, negligence hold to be however jury, requires judge it to the part surgeon causing on the charge general should refuse the for result, courageous enough the bad few would be defendant, notwithstanding great weight practice healing art, they for have would the evidence is on side of the defend liability nearly to assume financial for all ” power duty ant. But it is within ‘ills flesh heir to.’ is presiding judge prevent case Grim, App. 585, In Fausette v. Mo. injustice, exercises the same operated power S. W. in which defendant duty, and is bound the same mak appendicitis pregnant woman, on a necessary due allowance differ language: held this presentation ence in the of causes in this say courts. This is not to charge “The is that defendants support appellee’s operation. that the evidence in an advised In this kind of a case only prove gleam, operation spárk, was no must more than a that the a a scin unnecessary operation was was of vised it. say but also that tilla, that, notwithstanding it is to palpably unnecessary surgeon that a judge properly general the trial refused the ordinary and skill care would not ad- charge, justice this court see that will done is - If conditions were such as to lead due to be the triers of fact as ordinary surgeons of care and skill to think an judge declaring well as the law. operation necessary defendants, line, have heretofore cited eur cases thought judgment, honest exercise of their best dispose and that well suffice to operation proper, this like not be liable then would defendants appeal. However, quote we if some even it turned out afterwards diagnosis”— jurisdictions were mistaken alleged cases in their other —cases citing cases. 'malpractice. Champion Kicth, In 17 Okl. Supreme 87 P. Court of Okla Holm, In N. Staloch v. 100.Minn. homa said: (N. S.) 712, W. 9 R.L. A. court said: “In the trial of cases such as the one before surgeon] [the “He is faced the eccentrici- us, frequently proceed great care, courts should experts. ties of medical We have no inclination liability prejudice will prevalent intemperate to share in the de- creep jurors, into the minds of the and oft unreliabiiity veniality. nunciation of their times liable arrive at unwarranted every mulcting reputable phy- But if verdict conclusions.” damages must be sustained if sician professional English to- Free, can be brethren induced In A. 777, 205 Pa. assuming testimony that, of the fam- swear the court said: “A is not an insurer true, ily physician to be and friends patients. of his We think the "court below a mistake of made right entering this, in a nonsuit” — practice, guilty then of unscientific had been profession diag incorrectly case in which the defendant ‘unmerciful [in] would ” , femur, nosed a of the dislocation faster.’ and follows follows fast disaster saying, injury very “this is such that difficult to Many detect its exact character.” effect Such to the same cases other , thought case here. quoted. un- it We had be cited Elder, In original Kernodle necessary v. Okl. P. more to do quoted Pop court Williams v. cases Robinson v. Crot- 23, than well, our own cite pleton, follows: Or. 57 So. and Moore 111 So. 918. The courts 215 Ala. obliged by calling “A Ms * * * everywhere thought necessary ex- stantly have casos, undertake difficult perform protect operations great order to pres- and to ence of ercise care in honest critical ignorant being capable those who are and credulous. men from mulcted medical misjudged, I-Ie is liable to acts his mo- by jurors who the verdict* know little suspected, tives torted tentions on the and the truth colored or dis- subject required are are even where there dishonest in- system in our consider and determine jurisprudence, part of his accusers.” same time administer- at the. liability Taft, (C. C.) Ewing the rule of declared this court In v. Goode 78 F. approval quoted heretofore decided. Judge, cases Circuit from an

' English (Hancke Hooper, is the 7 Car. & rehearing be denied. 81) P. as follows: responsible injury “A done J., ANDERSON, GARDNER O. patient through ato the want of skill BOULDIN, JJ., apprentice; but, against concur. in his an action

Case Details

Case Name: Carraway v. Graham

Court Name: Supreme Court of Alabama

Date Published: Nov 1, 1928

Citations: 118 So. 807; 218 Ala. 453; 1928 Ala. LEXIS 327; 6 Div. 12.

Docket Number: 6 Div. 12.

Court Abbreviation: Ala.