Page:Medical jurisprudence (IA medicaljurisprud03pari).pdf/409

 Chorley, M. D. v. Bolcot, executor.

(From 4 T. R. p. 317.)

The plaintiff, who was a physician living at Doncaster, brought this action for fees, for attending a considerable time on the defendant's testator, who lived at some little distance from the town; and the evidence was, that at Doncaster and its neighbourhood there was no certain rule about fees, but the general practice was for a physician to receive two guineas a week for his attendance. The plaintiff obtained a verdict at the last assizes at York; to set aside which Wood obtained a rule nisi last term, on the ground that no action lay for a physician's fees any more than for a barristers.

Cockell, Serj. and Chambre, now shewed cause; observing that though this point had been ruled several times at nisi prius against such a claim, yet it had never been solemnly decided, nor was there any authority in the books for putting the claim of a physician's fees upon the same footing as those of a barrister. In the latter case it might originally have been proper that no temptation should be held out to countenance injustice: but in the former it would be equally impolitic that those who are frequently put to expense in attending patients at a distance, and who are liable to make reparation to those who may suffer by their want of skill, should not be certain of a just and honourable reward. The regulation with regard to barristers is founded on grounds of public policy, as appears by the passage in Tacitus, to which Mr. J. Blackstone refers; but they are totally inapplicable to the case of physicians. And in that very passage in Tacitus it is taken for granted that the latter were entitled to a remuneration, because their situation was dissimilar to that of advocates. Besides in this case there is an additional reason why the plaintiff should recover, as there is understood to be a general stipulated