Milford chronicle., 1909-11-12
An Interesting Suit.

On Wednesday last the decision was
handed down By Squire Fisher il the case
brought by Dr. Frederick P. Ruhl, vet
erinary surgeon of this town, and David
W. Mills, a prominent farmer of Cedar
Neck, about miles east Of town. Mr..
Mills had already lost two horses which
had been under the treatment oftwo other
veterinary surgeons, and at the time DR..
Ruhl entered into the case, he had one
/ large black mare in very critical condi-
ton and a valuable driving horse, the
property of the defendants son, had also
shown symptoms of the affection. The
large black mare, one of the two horses
DR.. Ruhl had agreed to treat, died the
day after his first visit the valuable driv-
ing horse of the son was saved as was all
the other horses owned by the defendant
The decision handed down by Squire
Fisher was as follows:
1t appears to the justice that the matter
for consideration IN this case is whether
or not there we're services rendered by
virtue of an implied contract subsequent
to the expiration of an express con-
tract. The defendent was the owner of
certain horses, and there had been an oral
contract made between plaintiff and de-
fendant in presence of a reputable wit
ness, to the effect that the plaintiff should
render professional services to two horses,
one already a sick horse and in a critical
condition, and the other a very valuable
horse belonging to the son of the defen-
dant, and which had already shown
symptoms of disease. 1t was the testimony
of parties present at the time the original
contract was made in presence of B.
Frank Shockley that the plaintiff should
under any and all circumstances be en-
titled to payment for medicines furnish
ed, but under no circumstances should
he be entitled to remuneration for pro-
fessional services rendered in the event
that either OF the two horses he was then'l
called on to attend should die
The one horse found by the plaintiff to I
be in critical condition when he first |
went to defendants farm, it was deemed /
feasible to kill the day after his first visit |
and this horse having died. it must be /
concluded that the plaintiff could not be |
entitled to remuneration for any service
the two horses which be had
agreed to attend by expressed contract in
presence of B. Frank ShOckley, notWith-
standing the diving of the horse above re-
ferred to, the plaintiff from the evidence
ldduced gave faithful and constant stten-
tiOn TO the very valuable horse Of the son
and brought it through the affection. The
defendant aside from the two horses re-
erred to was the owner of another horse
Known as the Armour horse and also three
,Olts. At the solicitation of the plaintiff
he defendant permitted him the p aintiff
o treat the Armour horse and the three
,olts by injection or vaccination and
neither the Armour horse, or either of {
he colts we're troubled with the affection !
The defendant was near by when this
Teatment was applied and it was testified Z
hat he said he was in detected frame I
# mind fearing that his remaining stock {
night die as had those which had become :
hected prior to the plaintiffs first visit
The amount claimed by plaintiff was 1
25 90 for ten (l0) visits or s. SO each, L
nd S. IS for medicines and q syringe Il
uTnished. The plaintiff testified that p
Or three of these visits he had been
lready paid by the State Board Of Agri 4 !
nture at the rate of So 90 per visit. So d
ID Tue CudiBo VI " ~ per Nlsll uOtb =
ot appear to be unjust. 1t appears :
berefore that the defendant should pay /.
lT these seven ID visits, all OF which U
'ere made subsequent to the death of the c
orse above referred to and after the or
FINAL contract had ceased. These seven
y visits at 81 so each would amount to
$50 and the medicines and syringe to
8 rs additional, making in all $26 D for b
hich amount Judgment lie rendered in r;
lvOr of the plaintiff, Frederick P Ruhl. {
nd against the defendant David T.
ILLS, with interest from this date and d
le costs Of this suit. II