University Hospital v. DeVoney, 199 Ill. App. 307 (1916)

April 28, 1916 · Illinois Appellate Court · Gen. No. 21,175
199 Ill. App. 307
University Hospital, Defendant in Error, v. John B. DeVoney, Plaintiff in Error

University Hospital, Defendant in Error, v. John B. DeVoney, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 21,175.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 28, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Action by University Hospital, a corporation, plaintiff, against John B. DeVoney, defendant, to recover for board and nursing furnished by plaintiff to defendant’s sister. To reverse a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $246, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.

It appeared that the provision for the board and nursing was originally made by her attending physician, Dr. Harrigan. Dr. Harrigan claimed that he acted at defendant’s request, but defendant denied giving him the authority to arrange therefor. It appeared that later defendant visited the hospital. The cashier and superintendent thereof both testified that he then requested that his sister should not be moved from a private room to the ward and should have special nursing, and said he would pay and be responsible for the bill. He also denied having such a conversation. The cashier also testified that the previous bills had been paid by his checks.

I. B. Perlman, for plaintiff in error.

Cameron & Matson, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

*308Abstract of the Decision.

1. Contracts, § 387 * —when evidence sufficient to support verdict. In an action to recover for board and nursing furnished defendant’s sister, evidence examined and held sufficient to support a verdict for plaintiff.

2. Appeal and error, § 1487*—when admission of evidence harmless error. Error in admitting evidence of statements of one claimed to be defendant’s agent made to plaintiff’s employee to show such agency is harmless where the evidence without was sufficient to support the judgment for plaintiff.