Case ID: ill-app_187/html/0480-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Smith", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Catherine Cronin, Defendant in Error, v. Court of Honor, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 19,692.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Appeal and ebror, § 607
      
      —when objection to special findings waived. Plaintiff in error can not urge that special findings of the jury were not warranted by the evidence where the point was not made or raised on its motion for a new trial.
    2. Witnesses, § 167*—privileged communications. The rule as to privileged communications between a physician and patient is for the benefit of the patient and not the physician, and the physician is not entitled to claim the privilege where the patient has waived it.
    3. Witnesses, § 167*—when physician not privileged from testifying as to communication with patient. Where a member of a benefit society waived privileged communications between himself and his physician in his contract of insurance, held in a suit against the society for the insurance that the action of the court in allowing the physician, who was called as a witness for defendant, to refuse to testify on the ground of privilege was reversible error.
    
      Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph Sabath, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed July 14, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Catherine Cronin against Court of Honor to recover insurance on a certificate of insurance issued to Cornelius Cronin, in which the plaintiff was named as beneficiary. A judgment was recovered by the plaintiff for $1,000 and costs. To reverse the judgment, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.
    Francis J. Sullivan, for plaintiff in error; William B. Risse, of counsel.
    P. F. Murray, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.