Rader v. Elliot
| Decision Date | 26 June 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 31223.,31223. |
| Citation | 181 Iowa 156,163 N.W. 406 |
| Parties | RADER v. ELLIOT. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Johnson County; R. P. Howell, Judge.
Action at law to recover $318 for services rendered to the defendant by plaintiff in the vaccination of hogs. It was alleged that such was the agreed value of the services. The defendant admitted the services, but denied the value thereof. He further averred that at the time of his employment of the plaintiff, such plaintiff professed to be a veterinary surgeon duly authorized to practice as such, and that the defendant employed him as such; that all the services performed by plaintiff for defendant were in pursuance of such employment as a supposed veterinary; that in truth the plaintiff had not at that time received from the state board of examiners any certificate authorizing him to practice; that his contract of employment with the defendant was in violation of the law on his part, the defendant believing him to be duly authorized. The trial court submitted to the jury the question of fact whether the services rendered by the plaintiff for which compensation is claimed were so rendered by him as a purported veterinary and instructed that if the affirmative were found on such question of fact, the verdict should be for the defendant. The verdict was for the defendant. From the judgment entered thereon, the plaintiff has appealed. Affirmed.Milton Remley, of Iowa City, for appellant.
Dutcher, Davis & Hambrecht, of Iowa City, for appellee.
Some time prior to July 13, 1914, the plaintiff located at Oxford, Iowa, and publicly advertised himself as a veterinary surgeon. The defendant, a farmer, relying upon the advertisement, called the plaintiff as a veterinary to examine his hogs, some of which were sick. The plaintiff came on July 13th and examined the hogs, and diagnosed their ailment and administered medicine. He diagnosed the ailment at that time as something other than cholera, but the treatment was not successful. On July 22d he made a further diagnosis and declared the ailment to be cholera. At plaintiff's request he proceeded to treat the hogs for cholera by means of vaccination with virus and serum. He told the plaintiff that the expense would be at the rate of $15 per bottle of serum used. About 21 bottles were used. The treatment was only partially successful, the mortality being very great. At the time this service was rendered the plaintiff had no lawful right to practice as a veterinary in the state of Iowa. Section 2538i, Code Supplement, specifies the preliminary conditions which much be complied with before any person is authorized to practice as a veterinary within this state. These conditions require an examination of the applicant by the state board of examiners, the payment of a $15 fee, the issuance of a certificate or license signed by the members of the board, the recording of such license in the county where the applicant proposes to practice, and the payment of the recording fee. By the provisions of section 2538 l, Code Supplement, it is made a misdemeanor for any person to practice as a veterinary before such conditions have been complied with.
[1] For the plaintiff it is put forward that prior to July 13th he had taken the examination before the board of medical examiners; that he had been orally informed by some of the examiners that he would receive a license; that the license was subsequently issued on September 1, 1914. Whether it was ever recorded does not appear. By reason of the foregoing it is urged that plaintiff acted in good faith, and that the issuance of a license on September 1st pursuant to an examination had prior to July 12th was evidence of his qualification as of the date of such examination. However, it must be said that the good faith of the plaintiff cannot be accepted as a substitute for the express requirements of the statute. Nor will it suffice the plaintiff to show that he had in fact the qualifications of a veterinary. In a legal sense he was not a veterinary, nor was he authorized to practice as a veterinary, nor to advertise himself as such until he had received his license and recorded the same. It necessarily follows as a legal consequence that he was not entitled to recover for services rendered as a veterinary. This legal proposition...
To continue reading
Request your trial