98 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 



negligence of the owner of the automobile, if the 

 veterinarian be called by the owner of the animal 

 he must look to said owner for his pay, although 

 the owner may later recover from the owner of 

 the auto. If the veterinarian be called by the 

 owner of the auto, the owner of the auto will be 

 expected to compensate. When called by a third 

 person, not representative of either party, there 

 is no obligation, in the absence of previous agree- 

 ment, or of governmental enactments. In every 

 case, the act of an employee will be deemed the 

 act of the principal. 



Dogs are legally regarded as ''qualified prop- 

 erty. ' ' ^- That is, they are regarded as property 

 only when kept within the provisions of the law. 

 Thus, where the law calls for a license, or a collar, 

 or the wearing of a muzzle, a violation of such 

 provision removes the protection of the law for 

 the animal. It has therefore been held that under 

 such conditions there is no recovery for the killing 

 of such an animal.^^ But a dog is personal prop- 

 erty with a value,^* so that ordinarily the liability 

 of the automobilist would depend upon whether 

 or not the accident was due to his carelessness. 

 (§ 189.) 



"There is nothing in the ordinary relation be- 

 tween a physician and his patient which would 

 prevent the former from discontinuing his serv- 

 ices on the account of the latter, and entering into 

 a contract with another for the payment of the 



22 Public Health, 186. 241; Heisrodt v. Hackett, 34 



23 Sentell v. New Orleans, etc., Mich. 283, 22 Am. E. 529 ; 

 K. Co., 166 U. S. 698. Nehr v. State, 35 Neb. 638, 53 



24 Anson v. Dwight, 18 Iowa N. W. 589, 17 L. R. A. 771. 



