Case Name: Woodward v. Bugsbee
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1874-12
Citations: 5 Thomp. & Cook 204
Docket Number: 
Parties: Woodward v. Bugsbee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Thompson & Cook's Supreme Court Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 204–205

Head Matter:
Woodward v. Bugsbee.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals—when not allowable.
In an appeal involving less than $500, decided by the general term, there was involved only a question of fact and one concerning the admissibility of the testimony of a physician as to the value of the services of a nurse to a sick person in a peculiar case. Held not a proper case to go to the Oourt of Appeals.
Motion by defendant for leave to go the Court of Appeals after an affirmance by the general term of a judgment in favor of plaintiff.
The action was brought by Julia Woodward against Henry Bugsbee, administrator, etc., of Isaac Bugsbee, deceased, to recover for services. The decision, from which an appeal was sought by this motion, is reported in 4 N. Y. Sup., at page 393, where the facts are fully given.
Daniel Finn, for appellant.
James N. Pronk, for respondent.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
There is no principle involved in this case of sufficient importance to go to the Court of Appeals. The plaintiff's brother came to plaintiff's house and asked to be taken care of for a few days; he was sick; he had not been a member of plaintiff's family. Plaintiff took him and cared for him during a sickness which resulted in death.
The complaint of which he died was an ulcerous discharge, most offensive and loathsome. The sick brother was very grateful, and made a will giving plaintiff $500. This will, for a formal defect in the execution, was rejected, and plaintiff recovered $440, by action. The general term have affirmed the judgment.
The only questions are: Was plaintiff prevented from recovery by the rule that no action lies between members of same family. This is made a question of fact by the case which the Court of Appeals would not reverse. The other question arises as follows: The plaintiff put on the stand as a witness a physician, who knew the price of services rendered by nurses to sick persons. He testified, however, that he had never seen a case so bad as this, and knew of no market value of the services rendered by plaintiff.
He was asked what, in his opinion, was the value of-plaintiff's services? This was objected to and admitted, and exception taken. The general term thought it was no error for the reason that the witness knew the value of services similar in kind, but less in extent, and that, to prevent a failure of justice in such a case, the evidence was properly received.
The application for leave to go to the Court of Appeals is denied.
Motion denied.