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 
