{
  "id": 2814646,
  "name": "James C. Jensen, Defendant in Error, v. Wells & Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jensen v. Wells & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1913-01-27",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 16,829",
  "first_page": "79",
  "last_page": "83",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "177 Ill. App. 79"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 378,
    "char_count": 7310,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "sha256": "4dbb396c7a09cc28f338cccc8654dfb87108661682bb2578932fce5b2a39f405",
    "simhash": "1:5b9e3cb96b8a8d89",
    "word_count": 1254
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:19:36.081100+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James C. Jensen, Defendant in Error, v. Wells & Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Baker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn an action of the fourth class, for a tort, in the Municipal Court, brought by Jensen against Dr. Wells & Co., a corporation, the statement of plaintiff\u2019s, claim was that the defendant, by its servants and employees, falsely and fraudulently represented to plaintiff that he .was afflicted with \u201cpartial paralysis of the seminal ducts, loss of semen;\u201d that he paid defendant $425 for the treatment and cure of said alleged disease when in fact he was not afflicted with said disease.\nThe defendant maintained in Chicago a \u201cMuseum of Anatomy,\u201d and therein distributed cards bearing the words, \u201cSpecialists, Diseases of Men Only.\u201d On the window was the sign, \u201cDr. Wells & Co., Doctors and Specialists in all Kinds of Men\u2019s Diseases.\u201d\nThe plaintiff went to defendant\u2019s place of business February 26, 1909, and was given a pamphlet purporting to have been published by defendant, entitled \u201cSecrets of True Manhood,\u201d in which was the statement, \u201cWe cure * * * all diseases and weaknesses of men due to evil habits, etc. * * * Call or write. Dr. Wells & Co.\u201d Plaintiff called again at the Museum March 9, and was met by a man who said that he was Dr. F. P. Little, a doctor there, who wrote the name \u201cF. P. Little\u201d on one of defendant\u2019s business cards and gave it to the plaintiff. He made an examination, told the plaintiff that he had partial paralysis of the seminal ducts and loss of semen, and said it would cost one hundred dollars to have it cured. Plaintiff paid Little $40 and March 23 and March 26 made two further payments of $30 each. April 14 defendant wrote plaintiff asking him, \u201cto call on us before further prescribing in your case,\u201d May 2 plaintiff again called at the museum and was met by a man calling himself \u201cA. Slaughter,\u201d who gave him one of defendant\u2019s cards on which he wrote the name \u201cA. Slaughter.\u201d Slaughter told him that Little was on a vacation and he was there to take his place. He made an examination, told plaintiff he was in a pretty bad shape and wanted $150 to cure the condition in which he then was. The defendant sent ten parcels of medicine to plaintiff, each C. O. D. $6.50, which he received and paid for. Defendant again wrote plaintiff, asking him to call. He called November 26 and met a man whose name he did not know, who made an examination and told him that only \u201corganic phosphates\u201d would cure him, and that would cost him $175. Plaintiff paid him $100 on account and received from him a \u201cconsultation card,\u201d on the back of which was noted the payment of $100. He was also given by the same man medicine, for which he paid him $12.50. Two days later he went back and was told by the same man that he did not believe in \u201corganic phosphates\u201d and was given a battery. Some days afterward plaintiff went to the museum and found another \u201cdoctor\u201d there, who told him that the doctor whom he last saw had gone to Kansas City. The new doctor wanted to treat plaintiff, but he refused to permit him to do so. The defendant did not call Little, Slaughter or the doctor who treated the plaintiff in November, but produced an affidavit in support of a motion for a continuance, which stated that one Coates would testify that he was the physician in charge of the defendant company; that plaintiff presented himself for treatment March 21 and that at no time was there any such term used as is alleged in plaintiff\u2019s statement of claim. Plaintiff admitted that Coates would so testify, but testified that he did not see any doctor by the name of Coates. Plaintiff called as witnesses two doctors, who testified that they examined the plaintiff in April or May, 1910, and from such examination believed that plaintiff did not suffer between March 7 and December 1, 1909, from paralysis of the seminal ducts and loss of semen.\nWe do not think that the court erred in admitting the letter signed \u201cDr. Wells & Co.\u201d or evidence of the acts and statements of \u201cdoctors\u201d Little and Slaughter and of the other two \u201cdoctors\u201d who saw plaintiff in November at defendant\u2019s place of business. The defendant held out to the public that it had at its museum, \u201cdoctors and specialists in all kinds of men\u2019s diseases;\u201d that it cured \u201cby the best of medical ability\u201d certain diseases; to plaintiff\u2019s letters addressed to Little and Slaughter he received answers signed \u201cDr. Wells & Co.;\u201d Little named the price of $100 for curing plaintiff; defendant put in evidence a letter of plaintiff dated March 25, addressed to Little, beginning as follows: \u201cInclosed find $30 balance due you as per agreement,\u201d and plaintiff put in evidence a letter signed \u201cDr. Wells & Co.,\u201d dated March 24, asking him to remit the balance of $30 due on his contract and a receipt for $30 for professional services, dated March 26, signed \u201cDr. Wells & Co., F. P. L.\u201d Defendant also put in evidence the following letter of plaintiff dated May 4, addressed to A. Slaughter: \u201cInclosed find draft for $100 as per agreement,\u201d and plaintiff put in evidence a letter dated May 7, signed Dr. Wells & Co., beginning as follows: \u201cTour letter with draft for $100 enclosed received.\u201d '\nWe think that from the evidence the jury might properly find that Little made to plaintiff the statement that plaintiff testified he made, and that such statement was false and fraudulent and was relied on by the plaintiff; that the subsequent acts of the defendant and its employees were in pursuance of a plan to cheat and defraud plaintiff; that the defendant, having availed itself of the wrongful and fraudulent acts of its servants, the law presumes it authorized them; that the defendant cannot be permitted to enjoy the fruits of the fraud perpetrated by its servants without adopting all the instrumentalities employed by them, in perpetrating such fraud; that the defendant ratified the acts of its servants and retains the benefit of the transactions with the plaintiff, and cannot claim immunity on the ground that the fraud was perpetrated by its servants and not by the corporation.\nWe do not think that the language of counsel for the plaintiff in their arguments to the jury was such as to require a reversal of the judgment.\nFinding no reversible error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Baker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Samuels & Samuels, for plaintiff in error.",
      "John T. Donahoe, for defendant in error; Enoch Harpole, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James C. Jensen, Defendant in Error, v. Wells & Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 16,829.\nCorporations\u2014when liable for fraud of servants. Where employees of a corporation advertised as a \u201cMuseum of Anatomy,\u201d having \u201cdoctors and specialists in all kinds\u201d of certain diseases, represented themselves as such physicians and specialists and fraudulently induced plaintiff to believe that he was suffering from a certain disease, thereby obtaining money from him for supposed treatment and medicine, and the corporation availed itself of such fraud and retained the benefit, the corporation is presumed by law to have authorized and ratified the acts of its servants and cannot claim immunity on the ground that the fraud was perpetrated by its servants and not by the corporation.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Stephen A. Foster, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1910.\nAffirmed,\nOpinion filed January 27, 1913.\nSamuels & Samuels, for plaintiff in error.\nJohn T. Donahoe, for defendant in error; Enoch Harpole, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0079-01",
  "first_page_order": 97,
  "last_page_order": 101
}