
    Richard C. Smith vs. Samuel W. Dunn.
    In a suit in a justice's court, the demand filed was for visits and medicine. Held, that the state of demand pas not sufficient, it not showing how much was for visits, and how much for medicine, nor for what purpose the visits were made.
    This was an. action brought by Dunn against Smith, in a justice’s court. The demand filed was for “ visit and medicine” at various -times, from September to December, 1854, amounting to $54.25, reduced by credits to $45. It nowhere appeared for what purpose or in what capacity the visits were made, or how the plaintiff claimed to be entitled to compensation for them.
    
      Mr. Halsted moved to reverse the judgment rendered for the plaintiff below.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Potts, J.

If the charge in this state of demand had been for medicine alone, it might have been sufficient, though the kind and quantity were not specified. But every charge is for “visit,” as well as medicine, and the one is inseparably blended with the other throughout. To raise a legal liability or implied assumpsit, a consideration to which the law attaches a value must he shown in the absenee of an express .contract. A visit has no legal value in itself, unless it be paid for some beneficial purpose. In this case it is probable the plaintiff is a physician, and, as such, visited the defendant, at, his request, and prescribed for him or his family. But this, if so, should have appeared. We cannot presume it.

The judgment is reversed.  