Court Opinion

ID: 9866191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 00:37:36.725231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:13:27.066581
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
This case is before us on rehearing. The issues and facts of the case are fully set forth in the original opinion of this court wherein the demands of plaintiff were rejected as to all three defendants.
Plaintiff applied for a rehearing and for the first time seriously urged that it was entitled to judgment against defendant J. W. Breen. Thinking we might have been in error as to that part of the former judgment, we granted a rehearing, limiting it to the claim against J. W. Breen. We'have carefully reviewed the record again and are now convinced that our former conclusions were correct.
When the lower court first decided the case, it rejected plaintiff’s demands as to all defendants except J. W. Breen, and rendered judgment against him. He applied for a rehearing and by agreement of counsel for both plaintiff and defendant, the rehearing was granted and judgment rendered rejecting plaintiff’s demands against Breen.
On the trial of the case below Dr. Her-old, president of plaintiff clinic, made it clear by his testimony that plaintiff was looking only to Breen’s employer and its insurer for pay for any services rendered to Breen. Plaintiff contended in its pleadings that Breen’s employer and its insurer are bound for the bill for services rendered by express contract. Later in the case it abandoned the express contract claim and relied upon an implied contract with the employer and its insurer. It never attempted to prove any contract with Breen. It is clear that plaintiff at no time looked to Breen for payment of services rendered him. It made no report to him relative to his condition or treatment. It treated him entirely as a charge of the other two defendants to whom it looked for pay for its services.
It is certain plaintiff cannot recover against Breen under contract, which is the alleged basis of its suit against the other two defendants. And certainly under the pleadings and evidence in this case it cannot recover against him under quantum meruit, for if the pleadings could be held to be sufficient upon which to base such a judgment, the evidence is wholly insufficient for that purpose.
It therefore follows that the former opinion and judgment of this court is reinstated and made the final judgment of the court