96 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 



other than the owner either comes in person, or 

 telephones to the veterinarian asking for his im- 

 mediate service. The veterinarian is under no 

 obligation to respond, and if he does respond he 

 runs his own risk as to compensation. A person 

 calling a physician to attend one for whose sup- 

 port he is not responsible is not liable for the pay- 

 ment of the services.^^ He is not liable for the 

 payment unless it be distinctly agreed between 

 the physician and the party calling.^*' Where a 

 physician renders service to one at the mere re- 

 quest of a third person on whom there is no obliga- 

 tion to provide therefor, the law will not imply a 

 contract binding the third person to pay there- 

 for; but where an officer of a company directed a 

 physician to attend an employee injured in line 

 of duty the physician can recover reasonable com- 

 pensation.^^ Applying these principles in veteri- 

 nary practice we might reasonably say that when 

 the owner of an animal, or one of his employees 

 or a member of his family, calls for the services 

 of a veterinarian for the said animal, the owner 

 will be considered to have entered into a contract 

 to pay the veterinarian for his professional serv- 

 ices. When an animal has become sick or injured, 

 and the veterinarian has been called either by the 

 party legally responsible for the sickness or in- 

 jury, or by his legal representative, it will be 

 presumed that the party thus legally responsible 



19 Starrett v. Miley, 79 111. 21 Weinsberg v. St. Louis 



App. 658; Dorion v. Jacobsen, Cordage Co., 135 Mo. App. 553, 

 113 111. App. 563; Kearnes v. 116 S. W, 461. 

 Caldwell, 7 Ky. L, 450. 



2oGrattop v. Eowheder, 1 

 Neb. 660, 95 N. W. 679. 



