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 
ease, 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. R. 529; 
R. Co., 166 U. 8. 698. Nehr v. State, 35 Neb. 638, 53 
24 Anson v. Dwight, 18 Towa N. W. 589,17 L. BR. A. 771. 
