Bibber v. Simpson

59 Me. 181
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedJuly 1, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 59 Me. 181 (Bibber v. Simpson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bibber v. Simpson, 59 Me. 181 (Me. 1871).

Opinion

Appleton, C. J.

The services rendered were medical in their character. True, the plaintiff does not call herself a physician, but she visits her sick patients, examines their condition, determines the nature of the disease, and prescribes the remedies deemed by her most appropriate. Whether the plaintiff calls herself a medical clairvoyant, or a clairvoyant physician, or a clear-seeing physician, matters little; assuredly, such services as the plaintiff claims to have rendered, purport to be and are to be deemed medical, and are within the clear and obvious meaning of R. S. 1871, c. 13, § 3, which provides that “ no person, except a physician or surgeon, who commenced prior to Feb. 16, 1831, or has received a medical degree at a public medical institution in the United States, or a license from the Maine Medical Association, shall recover any compensation for medical or surgical services, unless previous to such services he had obtained a certificate of good moral character from the municipal officers of the town where he then resided.” The' plaintiff has not brought herself within the provisions of this section, and cannot maintain this action.

Nonsuit confirmed.

Kent, Walton, DickeRSOn, Barrows, and Talley, JJ., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Wakeen
57 N.W.2d 364 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1953)
People v. Zinke
169 Misc. 573 (New York City Magistrates' Court, 1938)
State v. Smith
273 P. 343 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1928)
Smith v. People
51 Colo. 270 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1911)
State v. Smith
135 S.W. 465 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1911)
Hazlitt v. State
93 N.E. 669 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1911)
State v. Heffernan
65 A. 284 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1906)
Kansas City v. Baird
92 Mo. App. 204 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)
State ex rel. Kellogg v. Currens
87 N.W. 561 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1901)
State v. Mylod
41 L.R.A. 428 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1898)
State ex rel. Burroughs v. Webster
41 L.R.A. 212 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1898)
People v. Phippin
37 N.W. 888 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1888)
State v. Dent
25 W. Va. 1 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1884)
State ex rel. Powell v. State Medical Examining Board
20 N.W. 238 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 Me. 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bibber-v-simpson-me-1871.