COMPENSATION 95 
74. Effect of Malpractice on Compensation. 
Negligence does not necessarily preclude the re- 
covery of fees, perhaps reduced in amount.!* It 
is a general rule, however, recognized by the com- 
mon law, that where the practitioner has been 
guilty of negligence and malpractice he cannot 
recover for his services.17 It must be recognized 
that there is a difference between simple negli- 
gence and malpractice, though malpractice is a 
result of negligence. It should be apparent to 
any one, that a man who is constantly intoxicated 
cannot render due care in such professional serv- 
ice; but if one continues to employ such a practi- 
tioner, knowing his habits, he is thereby estopped 
from making that a ground for refusal to pay for 
the service.® If there be negligence on the part of 
the practitioner, there is also contributory negli- 
gence on the part of the client. A man cannot 
thus take an advantage of his own negligence. 
75. Who is Liable for Compensation. Ordi- 
narily it is the owner of live stock who sends for 
the veterinarian, and in such a ease there would 
be no question as to who must pay for the services. 
Under the general rule of respondeat superior 
the act of a subordinate is considered as the act 
of the principal, and when a servant sends for the 
veterinarian it will be considered as if the owner 
himself had sent for him. It frequently happens 
in accident cases especially, that some person 
43 Kas. 714, 23 Pac. 942; Max- 17 Chitty’s Blackstone, III, 
well v. Swigart, 48 Neb. 789,67 122, note. 
N. W. 789. 18 MeKleroy v. Sewell, 73 
16 Whitesell v. Hill, 66 N. W. Ga. 657. 
894. 
