
    Shaw v. Klein.
    [83 South. 20,
    In Banc.
    No. 20962.]
    Physicians and Sukgeons. Evidence. Admissibility.
    
    Where in a suit against a physician and surgeon for negligence in performing an operation, the declaration expressly charged the defendant with want of skill and care thereby putting his possession thereof directly in issue, the testimony of other surgeons that defendant was a careful and skillful surgeon was admissible.
    Appeal from the circuit court of Lauderdale county.
    Hon. R. W. Heidelberg, Judge.
    Suit by Jesse E. Shaw against Dr. K. T. Klein. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
    The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
    
      F. V. Brahan, for appellant.
    
      Baskin éb Wilbourn and Jacobson & Brooks, for appellee.
   Smith, C. J.,.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellee, a physician and surgeon, performed a minor surgical operation on the appellant, who after-wards instituted this action in the court below to recover of the appellee damages alleged to have been sustained by him because of the negligence of the appellee in performing- the operation. There was a verdict and judgment for the appellee.

One of the assignments of error presents for our determination the admissibility of the testimony of several surgeons that the appellee is a careful and skillful surgeon. The declaration expressly charges the appellee with the want of skill and care,” thereby putting his possession thereof directly in issue; consequently evidence thereof was admissible.

Whether this evidence would have been admissible in the absence of - such an allegation is not now before us. for consideration.

There is no merit in the other assignments of error.

Affirmed.  