Cotnam v. Wisdom
|Cotnam v. Wisdom|
|Court||Supreme Court of Arkansas|
|Citation||83 Ark. 601|
104 S.W. 164 (1907)
The plaintiffs were doctors and the defendant was a man injured in an accident. He was thrown from a street car, and received serious injuries. Some spectator notified the doctors of the injury, and they performed a difficult operation in an effort to save his life. They wanted to charge his estate for the surgery.
Judgment for the plaintiffs, to which the defendant appealed.
- Whether one can recover from a contract which is implied but never expressly agreed to.
- Whether the estate and financial situation of one entering a quasi contract can be considered in determining the cost of services rendered.
Judgment reversed and the case remanded.
A constructive contract is a legal fiction because there was no promise and agreement, but is necessary for the sake of remedy.
The financial condition of a patient cannot be considered when there is no contract and recover is sustained on a legal fiction which raises a contract in order to afford a remedy which the justice of the case requires.