Case ID: ohio-law-abs_5/html/0497-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "VICKERY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 543
    LIND, M. D. v. ZEISEL
    Ohio Appeals. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Co.
    No. 8052.
    Decided May 16, 1927.
    297. CONTRACTS — Where medical services are rendered to twenty-four-year-old daughter, father cannot be held for same unless he promised to pay for same, expressly or impliedly.
    First Publication of this Opinion
    Attorneys — A. W. Bell for Lind; T. J. Long for Zeisel; both of Cleveland.
   VICKERY, J.

Samuel Lind brought an action in the Cleveland Municipal Court to recover from Henry Zeisel, for certain medical services performed on behalf of a daughter, twenty-four years of age. Mrs. Zeisel called the doctor and he performed an operation, later the daughter was again taken to the hospital and a second operation was performed by Dr. Lind. Judgment was rendered against the doctor, and error was prosecuted. The Court of Appeals held:- — ■

1. Nothing was said by anybody as to payment for the services until after the second operation was performed; and when the doctor spoke to the father and mother, both dis-viaimed financial responsibility.

2. There is nothing in the record to show that the parents requested the doctor to serve the daugher; and if there were, there was no promise afterwards to pay this bill.

3. It does not appear that the father knew that the doctor was called; and there is nothing in the record to show that he acquiesced in it or paid for it afterwards.

4. In order to hold the father in this case, there must be a promise express or implied. There being neither in the record, judgment is affirmed.

Judgment is affirmed.

(Sullivan, PJ.; Levine, J., concur.)