COMPENSATION 97 



will pay the bill. If the veterinarian has been 

 called by one neither responsible for the condi- 

 tion of the animal, nor its owner or his repre- 

 sentative, it will be presumed that the act of call- 

 ing for professional aid proceeded purely from 

 humane motives, and if the veterinarian responds 

 he can hold no one liable, in the absence of a pre- 

 vious agreement. If, however, he responds, and 

 the owner accepts his services, either by permit- 

 ting him to continue, or by following his direc- 

 tions, or by getting a prescription filled, it will be 

 considered that the owner thereby assumes the 

 liability for the payment. 



The case is not always so simple as it looks, and 

 the decision as to liability for payment may hinge 

 upon a very small item. Suppose that an automo- 

 bile runs into, and injures an animal. If the acci- 

 dent be due to the carelessness of the owner of 

 the animal, only the owner could be held; and not 

 he unless by some act he puts himself under the 

 obligation, as by calling the veterinarian or 

 acquiescing in the treatment. But if the veterina- 

 rian be called by the owner of the automobile, 

 not to attend to the injuries, but to determine 

 their extent, and as a matter of defense for the 

 motorist, clearly he would be under obligations 

 to pay for the service thus rendered; though if 

 the veterinarian incidentally treated the injuries 

 the motorist would be under no obligation to pay 

 for this extra service. The same general rules 

 would apply in case the responsibility for the 

 accident rests upon both the owner of the animal 

 and the owner of the automobile. 



When the accident has been the result of the 



