{ "id": 1399859, "name": "Threlkeld v. Baptist Hospital", "name_abbreviation": "Threlkeld v. Baptist Hospital", "decision_date": "1928-04-16", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "1073", "last_page": "1075", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "176 Ark. 1073" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "223 S. W. 372", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "145 Ark. 96", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1586190 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/145/0096-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 S. W. 965", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "87 Ark. 434", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1519134 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/87/0434-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 271, "char_count": 4172, "ocr_confidence": 0.441, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08, "percentile": 0.47015636818980566 }, "sha256": "08881938bb77400831b5d2b4a2e2206b938c5ab3a46a5c477888d59878dee893", "simhash": "1:b74b856147aaf2e6", "word_count": 695 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:05:04.337082+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Threlkeld v. Baptist Hospital." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Kirby, J.\nAppellee brought this suit against appellants on an account for an indebtedness of the sum of $314.05 for service alleged to have been rendered to appellant Threlkeld while confined as a patient at appellee\u2019s hospital in Alexandria, La., it being also alleged that appellant Gerhardt had guaranteed in writing the payment of the account.\nA. L. Threlkeld was an employee of the Vincennes Bridge Company of Vincennes, Ind., at work upon the construction of a bridge near Trout,\u00bb in Louisiana, and appellant Gerhardt was foreman or superintendent of the construction of the bridge, and father-in-law of appellant. Threlkeld was injured in the course of his employment on October 6, 1926, and taken by Gerhardt to the Baptist Hospital at Alexandria, La., for treatment, being admitted there on the afternoon of that day. On October 11 Gerhardt signed the following notation on the ledger sheet upon which Threlkeld\u2019s account was being kept: \u201cThis bill is guaranteed in full by me, and I hereby sign my name. F. O. Gerhardt. Now at Trout, Louisiana; permanent address, Alma, Arkansas.\u201d\nSuit was brought against both appellants for the services rendered, the payment of which was guaranteed by Gerhardt. Appellants denied the allegations of the complaint.\nThe undisputed testimony shows the amount of the account charged to Threlkeld was correct, a copy of it in fact having been \u201cO.K.\u2019d\u201d by him, and that Gerhardt signed the guaranty.\nTestimony was introduced showing that, under the workmen\u2019s compensation law of Louisiana, the bridge company, appellant\u2019s employer, was bound to the payment for his hospital bill and medical treatment to the sum of $250, and also to the payment of a certain per cent, of the amount of wages, that would have been earned during the disability caused by the injury at the regular contract price.\nGerhardt offered to testify that he did not intend to personally guaranty the payment of Threlkeld\u2019s account for medical treatment, etc., at the hospital, but only to bind the company to its payment by signing the guaranty.\nThe superintendent of the hospital said he understood the liability of the employer, under the law, for payment of hospital bills and medical treatment to an injured employee, and stated that he was only trying to have secured, by obtaining the guaranty of Gerhardt, the payment of any amount that should become due for treatment of Threlkeld while he was iii the hospital, since his injury was so severe as to apparently require his staying- therein longer than the amount the employer was required to pay would satisfy the account for.\nAfter the introduction of the testimony in chief, appellant was allowed to amend his answer, to allege that he signed the guaranty as the superintendent of the bridge company, and on its account placed Threlkeld, another employee, in the hospital, and, as such agent, contracted with appellee for his care and treatment.\nThe court directed the jury to return a verdict for the amount sued for, and from the judgment thereon this appeal is prosecuted. \u2022\nAppellant insists that the court erred in directing the verdict.\nThe undisputed testimony showed that the account sued on was correct, it had been O.K.\u2019d by the injured employee to whom the services were rendered, and appellant Gerhardt did not deny its correctness, but attempted to show by parol testimony that, in signing the'guaranty for its payment, he did so as the superintendent of the Vincennes Bridge Company, for whom Threlkeld was working at the time of his injury, acting as its agent, and intending only to bind the company to the payment of the account by such guaranty. The court correctly refused to allow the introduction of parol testimony to alter, contradict or vary the terms of the written guaranty, whose meaning is plain and unambiguous. Bryant Lumber Co. v. Crist, 87 Ark. 434, 112 S. W. 965; United Drug Co. v. White, 145 Ark. 96, 223 S. W. 372.\nThere being no conflict in the testimony, no error was committed in directing the verdict, and the judgment is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Kirby, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "D. H. Howell, for appellant.", "Starbird & Starbird, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Threlkeld v. Baptist Hospital.\nOpinion delivered April 16, 1928.\nD. H. Howell, for appellant.\nStarbird & Starbird, for appellee." }, "file_name": "1073-01", "first_page_order": 1091, "last_page_order": 1093 }