Page:Medical jurisprudence (IA medicaljurisprud03pari).pdf/410

 acknowledgment for a physician's attendance at the place where this transaction arose.

Lord, Ch. J. I remember a learned controversy some years ago as to what description of persons were intended by the Medici at Rome; and it seemed to have been clearly established by Dr. Mead, that by those were not meant physicians, but an inferior degree amongst the professors of that art, such as answer rather the description of surgeons amongst us. But at all events it has been understood in this country that the fees of a physician are honorary, and not demandable of right. And it is much more for the credit and rank of that honorable body, and perhaps for their benefit also, that they should be so considered. It never was yet heard of that it was necessary to take a receipt upon such an occasion. And I much doubt whether they themselves would not altogether disclaim such a right as would place them upon a less respectable footing in society than that which they at present hold.

Per Curiam.     Rule absolute.

Lipscombe v. Holmes, esq.

(From Campbell.)

This was an action for work and labour as a surgeon, and for curing the defendant and several persons of his family, of divers diseases and maladies, under which they had respectively laboured and languished. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and paid 3l 13s 6d into court.

The first defence set up was, that the plaintiff was a physician, and therefore could not maintain an action for his fees. It appeared that he wrote prescriptions, was called "Doctor," and signed himself M. D.

Park said he should shew, that at the time when the visits were paid, for which the action was brought, the plaintiff was only a surgeon; and that he had not taken out his diploma as a physician till long after.