Case ID: ohio-law-abs_5/html/0482-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ALLREAD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 528
    MADDEN v. WOODS
    Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist., Franklin Co.
    No. 1534.
    Decided Feb. 18, 1927.
    1106. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS— Where mutual accounts are to be credited against each other, the statute of limitations should not be considered.
    920. PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS— Wheré a doctor renders services to a housekeeper, her employer is liable, in the event that the employer requested the doctor to perform the services.
    First Publication of this Opinion
    Attorneys — T. N. and J. M. Lewis for Madden; Homer Trantham for Woods; all of Columbus.
   ALLREAD, J.

This action originated in the Municipal Court and was appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. The suit was upon an account, which showed a certain balance. A jury rendered a judgment for the full" amount of the alleged balance. Error was prosecuted and the Court of Appeals found as follows:

The question of the statute of limitations as to the older items is presented and urged as a basis for the reduction of the amount of the verdict. The pleadings on evidence showed that the mutual accounts were to be credited against each other, and for this reason the statute of limitations should not be considered.

The next question relates to the liability of Madden for the services of Dr. Woods to Mrs. Carter, Madden’s housekeeper. The trial court charged the jury that Madden would be liable for said services only in the event that he, Madden, requested the doctor to perform the services.

The verdict of the jury was in favor of Dr. Woods upon that issue and we think the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict in this respect.

Judgment affirmed.

(Femeding and Kunkle, JJ., concur).