
    Sarah J. Pandjiris, Resp’t, v. John McQueen, Adm’r, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
    
    
      Filed March 13, 1891.)
    1. Witness—Privileged communications.
    Testimony of physicians concerning the rendition of services of a claimant as a nurse to their patient is not objectionable under § 834 of the Code. Knowledge of such fact is not information at all entering into their professional conduct as the physicians of the intestate.
    2. Same—Claims against decedent’s estates.
    The joinder of two or more claims against a decedent’s estate in the sam e reference does not deprive either of its individuality, or make either of the claimants a party to the proceeding of the other.
    Appeal from order of special term denying motion for new trial on a case containing exceptions, a reference having been had to determine the validity of a claim against the decedent’s estate.
    
      A. McDonald, for app’lt'; D. C. Briggs, for resp’t.
   Van Brunt, P. J.

We have examined the record in the case at bar and see no reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the judge at the special term.

None of the objections presented upon the record are well taken, and we do not think it necessary to refer to them in detail, because the counsel for the appellant has not considered the question of sufficient importance to refer in his points to the correct folios in the case affecting the same, but reference is made to folios in some imaginary case which is not before the court

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Daniels, J.

The objections taken to the evidence obtained from the physicians, and the motion to strike out their answers, were devoid of legal foundation. What they testified to concerning the claimant’s services and employment in no way entrenched upon § 834 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was not information at all entering into their professional conduct as the physicians of the intestate, but related to a wholly distinct and separate subject. Neither were either of the physicians a party to her proceeding, nor was this claimant a party to the proceeding of either physician. Joining them in the reference agreed upon and ordered did not deprive either proceeding of its individuality. And the oath administered was entirely regular. The evidence, too, was sufficient to sustain the conclusion of the referee. It was for him to decide upon the weight of the evidence given. There are other objections, but they seem to be clearly frivolous, and the order should be affirmed, with costs.

Brady, J., concurs.  