In New York was long supposed that the policy the law excepted probate proceedings was held the Surrogate New York City and also the General Term the Supreme Court which was stated that the practice had prevailed for a half-century in will cases but the Court Appeals has decided that testamentary cases constitute no exception the rule, the judge who delivered the opinion stating that there no more reason for allowing secret ailments a patient brought light in a contest over his will essay revision service than in any other case, and that if mischief wrought the law the remedy custom paper writing services lies with the legislature and not with the courts.
The legislature has since afforded the remedy, but not the extent adopting the rule the earlier cases.
In Indiana, in an action set aside a will, the testimony the testator's physician has been excluded. And in Michigan and buy research paper urgently Missouri seems that testamentary how to hire a ghostwriter cases are no exception the general rule. Lunacy and Habitual Drunkenness. It has been claimed in New York that inquisitions lunacy are an exception, and recently has been held that the alleged lunatic's physician may testify as his mental condition because no one better qualified testify, but this decision seems at abortion and criminal intimacy variance with the principle the decisions the Court of Appeals with reference testamentary cases, and presents no satisfactory reason for a distinction. In a similar case in the Supreme Court, Chambers, was held that a medical attendant at an asylum could not testify.
It has also been held that a physician cannot make an affidavit as the appearance and condition his patient support a petition thesis writing service for the appointment a committee for him as an habitual drunkard.
Fraud. Still another class actions in which contending principles have been invoked make an exception in the law privilege, actions life-insurance contracts.
The contract insurance uberrimcB fidei, and the defence of fraud in the application frequently interposed defeat a claim under a policy. Medical testimony would often the most satisfactory evidence establish the fraud, and efforts have been made introduce under that excuse, but without avail. In the case Dilleber Home Life Insurance Company, in the Supreme Court New York at General Term, the question seems have been directly before the court, and Davis, dissenting, insisted that the suppression a physician's testimony ought not permitted as cover a fraud, but the majority the court held otherwise the case was subsequently overruled, cheap essay service but not the ground urged Justice Davis.
I need a ghostwriter
Homework help creative writing
The number insurance cases in which the rule has been enforced seems leave beyond question need help in writing essay that will not be relaxed for the purpose establishing fraud, although that announcement has not been specifically made. There seems no reason that the rule should relaxed in that regard when is not relaxed establish the crime the patient though the mischief that may done in such cases apparent.
The following cases in which the. dictum same effect, rule has been enforced have arisen As whether a physician may out essays on service contracts life insurance contradict his patient prevent Masonic Mut.
Ben. Assn. Beck, fraud, see infra, Ill The Witness. The statutory provisions as the professional status cheap essays the witness whose testimony exchided have ah'eady been shown The facts which establish the relation physician and patient will treated later. The witness is a member a profession, but there very little discussion in the cases as what constitutes a physician or surgeon. The language the statutes as well as their policy and intent has been said plainl embrace a physician who casuall or in any way attends and prescribes for a patient, whether a family physician or the usual medical attendant or not. The spirit the acts would protect communications made any person attending the patient in the accepted capacitj physician or surgeon wherever that might have happened, though the letter would confine in some instances duly authorized or duly licensed persons. It does not seem have been established whether such authority or license must have been granted under the laws the State where the trial conducted, nor how the several statutes apply communications made elsewhere, especially in States or countries where authority or license practise not required law.