
    (106 So. 328)
    No. 26830.
    Succession of BOUZIGA.
    (Nov. 2, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied Nov. 30, 1925.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)- ,
    1. Executors and administrators @=261, 267-Doctor attending deceased is privileged creditor, entitled to interest from judicial demand.
    A doctor who attended deceased in her last illness is a privileged creditor against her estate, and entitled to interest on the amount allowable from judicial demand until paid.
    2. Executors and administrators @=205(2) — $1,500 allowance for doctor’s services excessive under evidence, and should be reduced to $1,000.
    In claim against estate of an aged woman for doctor’s services as family physician rendered for 11 months, including 300 calls and treatment for a number of maladies, $1,500 held excessive under all the evidence, and should be reduced to $1,000.
    Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Mark M. Boatner, Judge.
    Final accounting of the administration in the succession of the estate of Josephine Bouziga, opposed by Dr. L. S. Charbonnet. From a judglnent ordering the account amended so as to place the opponent thereon as a privileged creditor as to a portion of the amount claimed by him, both the executor and opponent appeal.
    Judgment amended, and as amended affirmed.
    Charles Rosen and Louis L. Rosen, both of New Orleans, for executor and heirs.
    Charles J. Rivet, of New Orleans, for opponent Charbonnet.
   OVERTON, J.

Josephine Bouziga, whose succession is under administration, died December 27, 1923, at the age of 77 years. Her testamentary executor filed an account of his administration, and Dr. L. S.' Charbonnet filed an opposition to the account, alleging that he was a privileged creditor of the succession in the sum uf $5,006, with legal interest thereon from January 1, 1924, for professional services rendered the deceased from January 30, 1923, until her death ,on December 27, 1923. The opposition was tried, and judgment was rendered ordering the account filed by the executor amended so as to place Df. Charbonnet thereon as a privileged creditor in the sum of $1,500,' with 5 per cent, per annum interest on the amount allowed the doctor from judicial demand until paid. Both the executor and Dr. Charbonnet have appealed from the judgment rendered.

It is not questioned that Dr. Char-bonnet is entitled to compensation for the services rendered by him. The question is, to what amount is he entitled?

The evidence discloses that Mrs. Bouziga was stricken with a cerebral hemorrhage on or about January 30, 1923, and that Dr. Charbonnet was called in to treat her. At first her condition improved. Later she developed Bright’s disease, and a few days afterwards grippal pneumonia. Several weeks after this she developed erysipelas, and in her declining condition, and at her advanced age, developed senile gangrene and infectious ves: icles, which had to be ruptured. She also suffered from incontinence of urine and faeces. She left an estate valued at a little over $27,000. Her income was about $100 a month.

The number of visits paid by a physician to his patient, during a protracted illness, is a factor in determining the compensation to which he is entitled. The number of visits paid by Dr. Charbonnet to Mrs. Bouziga during the 11 months’ period that he attended her is in dispute. The trial judge, after considering the evidence, fixed the number at 300. Our examination of the record leads us to the conclusion that there is no reason to disturb his finding in this respect. We think that the finding is correct.

The services rendered by Dr. Charbonnet were those of a family physician. The expert evidence offered to show their value is conflicting. The trial court found that he was entitled to $1,500, but our appreciation of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that this is excessive. After considering the number of visits paid by Dr. Charbonnet, the nature of the maladies from which Mrs. Bouziga suffered, her means to pay, all of which should be taken into consideration, our opinion is that the evidence justifies the conelusion that Dr. Charbonnet is entitled to $1,000 and no more, and that the judgment appealed from should be reduced accordingly.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be amended by reducing the amount allowed from $1,500 to $1,000, and, in all other respects, including the allowance of interest and the recognition of the privilege prayed for, that it be affirmed; the costs of this appeal to be paid by Dr. Charbonnet.

ST. PAUL, J., thinks the judgment should be affirmed. ‘  