Virdin v. Stockbridge

Bryan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Dr. William W. Virdin brought a suit against the executors of John W. McCoy to recover compensation for services rendered to the deceased in his life-time. In the hill of particulars filed ■ with the declaration, the ⁴⁸² plaintiff’s cause of action is stated to be for “professional attendance and services, and work and labor as a practitioner of medicine, and in nursing” from the first day of January, 1%81, to the twenty-ninth day of July, 1887. The evidence showed that the plaintiff had rendered assiduous and valuable services to the deceased.

It also showed three receipts which were admitted to be in the hand-writing of the plaintiff. They were dated respectively March 11th, 1886; February 11th, 1887; and July 29th, 1887. The first one was stated on its face to be “ in full for medical attendance, and for all debts, dues and demands.” The second was stated to be “up to date in full.” The last one was in these words : “Boston, Mass., July 29th, 1887. “Received of John W. McCoy the sum of two hundred and ninety dollars, in full for medical service and attendance up to date. “$290. • W. W. Yirdin.” The plaintiff’s claim is limited by his bill of particulars to services before and up to the twenty-ninth day of July, 1887 ; and the receipt just mentioned shows a payment in full for medical service and attendance up to that time. This receipt was only prima facie evidence, and the fact stated in it was liable to be explained, or contradicted and overthrown by other testimony.

It set forth a settlement on 'the day of its date. And this implied that there was an ascertainment of the amount of money then due, and a payment of it. The plaintiff was at liberty to countervail this proof if he could do so, and show that there was -a mistake in estimating the amount due, or that the money was not actually paid, or that there were circumstances of fraud and imposition connected with the transaction. But unless its effect was in some way qualified or impair'ed, it would neces ⁴⁸³ sarily establish a complete bar to the plaintiff’s action, supposing that its truth was found by the jury ; and in this case no question of credibility of evidence can arise, because there is ah admission in the record that the receipts are in the plaintiff’s hand-writing.

We see no evidence to impeach this receipt. The brother of the deceased was examined as a witness. He testified as follows in reference to the receipt of February, 1881 : “The receipt for $250.00, dated February 11th, was made in my brother’s room ; I was in the lower part of the house and came up in the room, and Dr. Yirdin was there ; he and my brother were there talking, and when I entered the room my brother said to me, ‘I have had a settlement with Dr. Yirdin, and he will give you a receipt,’ and I said ‘very well;’ and the doctor managed to find a piece of paper of some kind or other and he gave the receipt ; he handed it to me, for I was in the habit of putting my brother’s receipts away ; he handed it to me and I looked at it and said to my brother, ‘ this