LIABILITIES 15 
trial court that if the defendant pretended to no 
skill as a farrier, or was not known as such, but as 
a matter of friendship, or otherwise, recommended 
the making of the puncture in question, and it was 
assented to by plaintiff, and made accordingly, 
defendant was not liable, though the horse died 
in consequence thereof. But on appeal, the 
supreme court found this instruction erroneous, 
and held that the defendant was a mandatory, and 
was responsible as such for gross ignorance or 
gross negligence; also that the diligence required 
is proportional to the value of the property bailed, 
or to the delicacy of the operation to be per- 
formed.’? 
The foregoing cases should make incompetent 
persons more cautions in assuming such responsi- 
bilities. It is unfortunately true, however, that 
it is just such persons who are ignorant even of 
the risks which they assume. 
49, Ordinary Liability. ‘‘A veterinary sur- 
geon, in the absence of a special contract, engages 
to use such a reasonable skill, diligence, and atten- 
tion as may be ordinarily expected of persons in 
that profession. He does not undertake to use 
the highest degree of skill, nor an extraordinary 
amount of diligence.’’!* He must follow usual 
methods.14 He would not be held liable for fail- 
ure, unless it were due to default in duty.’° The 
12 Conner v. Winton, 8 Ind. 
315, 65 Am. St. Dec. 761. 
13 Barney v. Pinkham, 29 
Neb. 350, 45 N. W. 694, 26 Am. 
St. R. 389. 
14 Patten v. Wiggin, 51 Me. 
594, 81 Am. Dec. 593; Carpen- 
ter v. Blake, 60 Barb. 488. 
15 Patten v. Wiggin, 51 Me. 
594; O’Hara v. Wells, 14 Neb. 
403, 15 N. W. 722; Bronson v. 
Hoffman, 7 Hun. 674; Boldt v. 
Murray, 2 N. Y. 232; Craig v. 
Chambers, 17 Ohio 253; Wil- 
liams v. Poppleton, 3 Ore. 139. 
