
    30259.
    HOLTON v. KENNEDY et al.
    
    Decided February 4, 1944.
    
      Alfred Herrington, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Kirkland <£• Kirkland, Norman Q. Beeves Jr., contra.
   Felton, J.

W. D. and E. L. Kennedy sued Eufus Holton in the city court of Soperton on an open account for $198.50. The jury found for the plaintiffs $98.50. The defendant’s certiorari to the superior court was denied, and he excepted.

The Account sued on consisted of the following items: To hospital, 9 days at $5, $45; glucose, $6; operating room and:amfetin, $12; delivery room, anes., $10; drugs and serums, $7.50;. special student nurse, $5; special'nurse’s board, -$6; operatioii. and-after-treatment, $100; 3 days .private nursing, $18; 4 nights private nursihg,- $24. Total $233.50. By cash 4/4/41, $35. Balance' $198.50:; The' evidence sliowed"that a Miss Coxwell was-carried to the plaintiffs’ hospital for an operation; that after she was- operated on the defendant came in arid told "the. superintendent, of .the hospital to-do all''she could for.'.the-patient, and to spare no.expense; that'the plaintiffs,-acting on-the statement.of-the'deféndan't; put on special nurses, and made extra visits after the patient had left the hospital, the value and charge»" for "wlirch'..were, not-proved separately. There was no -evidence’ that”the defendant' authorized the operation, or that any-expense was incurred .because of his alleged statement to the superintendent, except -as to special nursing. There was no evidence that the defendant paid $35 on the account, except hearsay and conjecture. The defendant denied the abcouht, and denied that he made the statement attributed to'him, and denied that he paid $35 on the account. In his brief he concedes that he is liable for the special nurses, and claims credit for the $35 payment'on the account. The jury was authorized'to find'against the defendant for special student nurse, $5; her board, $6; 3 days and 4 nights special nursing, $42; total, $53. The- amount over and above that sum was unauthorized, and it was error to deny the certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

Sutton, P. J., and Parker, J., concur.  