The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-04-21
BUDGES ROASTED
IN COURT OPINION
PrOprietOrS of Logan Hospital
Are Held Guilty of Sharp
Practice.
DEAL WITH SICK MAN
NOT ALLOWED TO STAND
Judgment in Their Favor
Against Former Patient
Is Reversed.

practiced and that the consideration
was wholly inadequate and administer
ing a scathing rebuke to the defend
ants the supreme court handed down an
opinion Tuesday in the case OF Joseph
s. and Ziua s. Peterson, OF Logan,
against Drs. T. p. and David c. Bulge,
brothers. to cancel deed 10 property
in lot 4, block II, plat D, Logan, revcrs-
ing the Judgment of the First District
court, Judge Ferdinand Erickson pre-
siding, in favor of the Budges and re-
manding the cause. with directions to
enter Judgment in favor Of the Peter
sons.
The opinion is written by Justice Nc
Carty and concurred in by Chief jus
tice Straup. Justice Frick concurring In
the reversal, but dissenting from some
of the views expressed by his associates.
While i'll. Peterson. on Jan. ., 1906,
conveyed the property, which was
valued at $1,000. to the Budges, ply
sicians and surgeons, who had attended
Peterson. In periodical illness, for years.
The circumstances leading up to and
surrounding the transaction were these:
At the time Peterson became i'll,
Thatcher Bros bank of Logan held two
overdue mortgages, one. for $4,000 and
the other for $120. on the property in
volvcd in the action, besides which Pet
erson owed D. c. Bulge $l0i and store
bills amounting to $500.
he
Petersons, when Peterson was threat
ened with foreclosure proceedings from
the hank. D. c. Bulge induced Peter
son TO convey the property TO /. b.
Bulge under the representation that
he would protect him and subsequently
reconvey the property 10 him, Peterson
to go through bankruptcy, then the
property would be reconvoyed to him
whereupon lie was TO reimburse the
Budges for their expenses in the mat
ter.
Reconveyance Refused.
The deal was consummated but when
Peterson demanded the property back
the Budges refused 10 reconvev IL and
Peterson and his wife then brought
suit, alleging, that the fiduciary rela
tion of physician and patient existed
between Peterson and the Budges when
the deed was executed, and charging
fraud and duress, and failure of con-
sideration. Judgment was entered for
the defendants and the Petersons APP
pealed TO the Supreme court.
In the lower court several witnesses
testified that Peterson was far from
being well man when he made the
deed while the Budges made light Of
this illness, but here is what the Su
preme court says:
1.-The record shows that Peterson dur
ing his illness had case in court which
came 10 trial Jan. II, 1906. and that
d. &. Bulge, in order that Peterson
might get the case continued, gave him
q medical certificate TO the effect that
Peterson was under his care and that
he was confined TO his room. unable to
attend TO any business which would
necessitate much mental strain. And
L. y. Bulge, on cross examination, tes-
tilted as follows: | made certificate
for Peterson covering his illness from
Dec. %, 10 Feb. -. TO enable him to
recover from the insurance company
upon health policy.
Party in Case.
And the record shows that the
Budges on April ], 1906, presented 10
Peterson an account for medical serv-
ices which they rendered him on the
very day, Jan. 6, 1906, on which the
deed was made. 1t is therefore ap-
parent that Peterson at the time of the
sale was either quite sick or that D.
G. Bulge knowingly used, or rather
abused the prestige and influence which
come to him by reason Of his profession,
TO obstruct and delay proceedings in
court of Justice; and that T. 3. Bulge
in order to enable a patient of his to
defraud an insurance comnanv out of
money. gave the patient a certificate
respecting the state of his health which
he knew TO be false and misleading.
Now, men in the practice of medi.
cine who are as Jealous of their profes.
sional skill and influence as the Budges
claimed to be do not use their profes-
slonal honor to obstruct the REGULAR pro.
ceedings IN courts of justice in order
TO enable one litigant to obtain an un.
fair advantage over another, nor dc
they lend their good name and influence
as professional men TO enable patient
to defraud insurance companies or other
parties with whom the patient NAV have
dealings in business way
Justice Frick holds that the evidence
supports no such strong views. He saws
the testimony Of Peterson is wholly nm
reliable and that Mrs. Peterson S ties
timony should have been given little
weight, also that Peterson IS illness wa.
not of such serious nature as hi.
friends claimed il to be- The lowe
court, he thinks, was justified in finding
that there was neither actual or con
structive fraud, but was not justified
III finding that the relation of ply
sician and patient did not exist be
tween the Budges and Peterson. AS t
the consideration Justice Frick say
that even physician may exercise hi
own Judgment in dealing with his pa
tlent if the transfer. is otherwise fai
and the relation is not abused.
the Budges are the proprietors Of tn
Bulge hospital at Logan.