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.2° 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 Tl. 21 Weinsberg v. St. Louis 
App. 658; Dorion v. Jacobsen, Cordage Co., 135 Mo. App. 553, 
113 Ill. App. 563; Kearnes v. 116 S. W. 461. 
Caldwell, 7 Ky. L. 450. 
20Grattop v. Rowheder, 1 
Neb. 660, 95 N. W. 679. 
