Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

28 N.H. 9

Wilkinson v. Albany

Superior Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 15, 1853

Superior Court of New Hampshire · decided 1853-12-15

Assumpsit, on an account annexed to the writ, amounting to the sum of §60. There were ten items in the account, running from July 28th, 1850, to August 22d of the same year. The account was headed as follows: “ To sundry visits and medicines for James Ham’s family, sick with the' small pox;” and the items were all alike, being, in each instance, “ To visit and medicine, §6,00.” The writ was dated April 16th, 1852, and contained but the one count above stated.

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1897

4 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1853-12-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gilchrist, C. J.

¶1It is provided by chapter 120, section 1 of the Revised Statutes, that any town may appoint an agent for vaccination, who may vaccinate all persons at the expense of the town, who have not had the small pox, and shall receive a suitable compensation therefor, to be paid by the selectmen.

¶2The family of Ham were not paupers, and the town was under no obligation to provide general medical attendance for them. Whatever the selectmen did was in their official capacity, and as the town was not liable, the selectmen could not, by their undertaking, make them so. For the general medical services, therefore, rendered by the plaintiff to the family of Ham, the town is not liable.

¶3But fhe plaintiff is entitled to recover of the town for his professional services in vaccinating the family of Ham. The statute does not go upon the ground that the persons who are ill with the small pox must be paupers. After the interview between the plaintiff and the selectmen, the former may be regarded as the agent of the town, for the purpose of vaccinating such persons as might require it, and may recover a reasonable compensation for that service. But he cannot recover under the count in the writ, for vaccination is neither under the head of “visits” nor of “medicine.” *12The plaintiff, however, may have leave to move to amend his writ in the common pleas, by inserting a new count.

¶4It does not appear what would be a reasonable competísation for vaccinating these persons. The case gives us no information on that point, and for the purpose of having the matter inquired into by the jury, the case should be discharged, and a new trial had.

¶5Verdict set aside.

/28/nh/9 · .json · Public domain