If that intention is clear and it contravenes no rule of law and sufficient words are used to arrive at the intention, it shall be enforced irrespective of all technical or arbitrary rules of construction.”). 9 Atlanta Emergency Servs., 328 Ga. App. at 12 (1) (punctuation omitted); accord Stefano Arts v. Sui, 301 Ga. App. 857, 860 (1) (690 SE2d 197) (2010). 10 Atlanta Emergency Servs., 328 Ga. App. at 12 (1) (punctuation omitted); accord Bd. of Comm’rs of Crisp Cty., 315 Ga. App. at 699. 11 Atlanta Emergency Servs., 328 Ga. App. at 12 (1) (punctuation omitted); accord Bd. of Comm’rs of Crisp Cty., 315 Ga. App. at 699. 12 Typographical errors in original. 13 Emphasis supplied. 14 Cf. Bd. of Trustees of N. Kan. City. Mem. Hosp. v. Conway, 675 SW2d 36, 36-39 (I) (Mo. Ct. App. 1984) (<HOLDING>). 15 OCGA § 13-2-2 (4); see also Paul v. Paul,
holding a wife liable for necessary medical expenses incurred by her husband under the doctrine even though the wife did not sign as a guarantor and did not request that her husband be admitted nor anticipate that her husband would be admitted holding that equity demanded that patients pay for medical services rendered by hospital in birth of child to prevent unjust enrichment holding that where hospital used balance billing its lien was unenforceable because the hospital had been paid in full for the services it provided to patient and there was consequently no debt to secure by the existence of the lien holding that wife made an unambiguous unqualified promise to pay for the hospital services rendered to her husband when she signed a document that was separate from the patients registration form which she did not sign and which listed her husband as the person responsible for this account and when the separate document was entitled guarantee of account and provided i will pay any unpaid balance on dismissal and i agree to be responsible for hospital services rendered to this patient holding that where missouri insured was injured in missouri when car in which she was riding was struck by separate uninsured vehicle driven by her husband and where missouri law precluded wife from suing husband insured was not entitled to um benefits because coverage was provided only when um motorist was legally responsible for damages noting that action against insurer was upon contract not tort and that the terms of the contract govern