Fox v. Dixon

New York Supreme Court

Fox v. Dixon

12 N.Y.S. 267, 34 N.Y. St. Rep. 710, 58 Hun 605, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3504

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 12, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 12 N.Y.S. 267 (Fox v. Dixon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fox v. Dixon, 12 N.Y.S. 267, 34 N.Y. St. Rep. 710, 58 Hun 605, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3504 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Learned, P. J.

Chapter 513 of the Laws of 1880 forbade any physician to practice who had not obtained and filed the certificate therein mentioned; and it declares that it shall be a misdemeanor to practice without having obtained and filed this certificate. It is not disputed in this case that Little, the [268]*268plaintiff’s assignee, and the physician, to recover payment for whose services this action is brought, and had not obtained" or filed such certificate at the time when the services were rendered. It is a settled principle that one cannot recover compensation for doing an act, to do which is forbidden by law, and is a misdemeanor. The contrary rule would make an absurdity. It would permit one to hire another to commit a misdemeanor, and would compel the payment of the contract price for doing what the law forbids. Whether this statute is wise or not, we cannot examine. It is enacted in the interest of the health of the public, to prevent incompetent persons from practicing as physicians. We must give effect to it. And we cannot permit a recovery of compensation for doing an act which this statute declares to be a misdemeanor. Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U. S. 261. It would seem that the attention of the learned justice who tried the case could not have been called to the statute; for he states that the inhibition had been removed by the legislature, and that now anybody can practice. In saying this, he seems to have had reference to the law as it existed before the statute of 1880, above cited. At any rate, it is not disputed that when Little performed these services the statute forbade him to practice. As the defendant proved affirmatively that Little had no license, we need not inquire whether proof that a physician has a license is a necessary part of the plaintiff’s case in an action for services. The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

All concur.

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

Learned, P. J.

Chapter 513 of the Laws of 1880 forbade any physician to practice who had not obtained and filed the certificate therein mentioned; and it declares that it shall be a misdemeanor to practice without having obtained and filed this certificate. It is not disputed in this case that Little, the [268]*268plaintiff’s assignee, and the physician, to recover payment for whose services this action is brought, and had not obtained" or filed such certificate at the time when the services were rendered. It is a settled principle that one cannot recover compensation for doing an act, to do which is forbidden by law, and is a misdemeanor. The contrary rule would make an absurdity. It would permit one to hire another to commit a misdemeanor, and would compel the payment of the contract price for doing what the law forbids. Whether this statute is wise or not, we cannot examine. It is enacted in the interest of the health of the public, to prevent incompetent persons from practicing as physicians. We must give effect to it. And we cannot permit a recovery of compensation for doing an act which this statute declares to be a misdemeanor. Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U. S. 261. It would seem that the attention of the learned justice who tried the case could not have been called to the statute; for he states that the inhibition had been removed by the legislature, and that now anybody can practice. In saying this, he seems to have had reference to the law as it existed before the statute of 1880, above cited. At any rate, it is not disputed that when Little performed these services the statute forbade him to practice. As the defendant proved affirmatively that Little had no license, we need not inquire whether proof that a physician has a license is a necessary part of the plaintiff’s case in an action for services. The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 N.Y.S. 267, 34 N.Y. St. Rep. 710, 58 Hun 605, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fox-v-dixon-nysupct-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack