
    C. H. BRONSON, Respondent, v. NICHOLAS HOFFMAN, Appellant.
    
      Party practising medicine without license, can recover the value of his services — Buie “ no cure no pay ” governs only where there is such an express agreement — Bill rendered— when not conclusive.
    
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the report of a referee.
    The plaintiff sued to recover the sum of fifty-four dollars, balance due for medical services rendered to the defendant in attending his minor child between October 1st and December 1st, 1869.
    At the time of the plaintiff’s employment he was attending lectures at a homoeopathic medical college, and was not yet licensed to practice, which facts were then known to defendant, who had previously employed him for himself — in a case of inflammatory rheumatism. The defendant also knew that plaintiff was a homoeopath ist.
    The plaintiff having treated the patient, the defendant’s minor child, for two months, defendant became dissatisfied, dismissed the plaintiff and employed an allopathist. The plaintiff presented his bill, charging one-half the usual fee of two dollars per visit for thirty-seven visits —thirty-seven dollars. The defendant objected to the bill, paid twenty dollars and refused to pay the balance.
    The court at General Term say: “The plaintiff was entitled to recover the value of liis services, notwithstanding he had received no license to practice. (Bailey v. Mogg, 4 Den., 60; White v. Carroll, 42 N. Y., 161.) That value was proved to be two dollars a visit. The fact that they were not beneficial to the defendant, or were unsuccessful in curing his child, is no defense. The rule “ no cure no pay ” governs only where there is an express agreement to that effect. Nor was the bill rendered by the plaintiff, conclusive upon him. {Williams v. Olenny, 16 N. Y., 389.)
    The delivery of the bill together with a payment on account of it without objection, would have shown such mutual assent as to give to the transaction the legal effect of an account stated. But the defendant testified that when he made the payment he objected to the bill.”
    
      R. F. Waring, for the appellant. R. R. Chittenden, for the respondent.
   Opinion by

Gilbert, J.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Gilbert and Dykman, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  