
    Wilhelm E. Krieger, Appellee, v. Chicago Carton Company, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 19,266.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Physicians and surgeons, § 24
      
      —when entitled to recover for services rendered on request. In an action by a physician against a company to recover for medical services rendered at the request •if officers of the company in treating an employe, held that the cornpany was liable on ah implied contract to pay for such services.
    2. Physicians and surgeons, § 24
      
      —admissibility of evidence. In an action by a physician against a company for medical services rendered at the request of officers of the company in treating an employe of the company, admission in evidence of a conversation, which was not communicated to the plaintiff, between an officer of the company and such employe, in which the officer of the corporation stated he would take care of the bill, held improper but not reversible error.
    
      Appeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. W. F. Slates, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed March 31, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Wilhelm E. Krieger against Chicago Carton Company, a corporation, to recover for services rendered by plaintiff as a physician and surgeon at the request of the president and superintendent of the defendant Company in treating William Ulm, who was injured while in the employ of defendant. Prom a judgment in favor of plaintiff for five hundred dollars defendant appeals.
    John Clark Baker, for appellant.
    John W. Sutton and Martin L. Wilborn, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.
    
   Me?. Presiding Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Instructions, § 90 —when party not entitled to an instruction to disregard improper testimony. Where a party fails to make proper objections to improper testimony he has no right to have such testimony excluded from the consideration of the jury.

4. Appeal and error, § 1560 —when refusal of requested instruction not error. In an action to recover for medical services, refusal of defendant’s requested instruction to the effect that the jury must disregard testimony as to the value of the services not based upon charges customarily and ordinarily made by other surgeons in the vicinity, held not error for two reasons First, that the court gave an instruction at the request of the defendant disregarding évidence not based on customary charges; and second, that the evidence was improperly admitted without specific objection.

5. Appeal and error, § 508 —when objection to evidence admitted not preserved by general objection. On appeal from a judgment for medical services, an objection that testimony admitted on behalf of plaintiff as to the value of plaintiff’s services should have been directed to what was the customary and ordinary fee charged by physicians at the place for services of like character, cannot he considered where the objection to the questions asked was general and did not specify the particular ground.  