[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
September 9, 1893


JAMA. 1893;XXI(11):391-392. doi:10.1001/jama.1893.12420630031005

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


Physicians can have but one satisfaction of their bills. An important illustration of this principle, suggestive of a wide application for it, occurs in the case of Wood v. Munson, decided by the Supreme Court of New York, July 8, 1893, (just reported, 24 N. Y. Supp. 286). Here a physician and health officer of a town attempted, by way of counter claim, in a suit brought against him, to collect the balance of his charge for attending a family through an epidemic after a portion of his bill had been allowed by the town. The court, however, said that the physician having presented his bill to the auditors of the town was evidence, as against him, that he was employed by the town to attend the family in question. The fact that the auditors allowed a portion of his charge was also evidence to show such employment. They would

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview