If a bond, bill, or note were given for medical attendance, the consideration would be good, though the original fees could not have been recovered. A distinction might we think be drawn between the fees of a physician and his travelling expenses, which are frequently considerable; but the case of _Chorley_ and _Bolcot_, before cited, is against it. If a medical practitioner passes himself off as a physician, (by no means an unfrequent practice in distant parts of the country) although he has no diploma, and no right to assume that character, he cannot maintain an action for his fees. _Lipscombe v. Holmes_, 2 _Camp._ 441. _see Appendix_. Though as a surgeon he might have recovered compensation: and even if he were no regular surgeon, the doctrine in _Gremare v. Le Clerc Bois Valor_, 2 _Camp._ 144. would entitle him to recover in an action of assumpsit. But query the authority of this case.[140] If there be any promise, a physician may receive on a _quantum meruit, Shepherd v. Edwards_; _Hill_ 11. _Jac._ 2. _Croke_ 370. In this case the plaintiff declared that he being a professor of physic and surgery had cured the defendant of a fistula and he had judgment. All physicians may practise surgery; (32 _Hen._ 8.) though surgeons may not encroach in physic; therefore query whether in this case the plaintiff did not sue as a surgeon; and the disease was one which in this day would clearly be classed as a surgical case. It was not so however in _Dale_ against _Copping_, (_Bulst. part_ 1. _p._ 39) when the promise of an infant to pay a certain sum to the defendant for curing him of the falling sickness was held binding, “for that this shall be taken as a contract, and that to be for a thing in the nature of necessity to be done for him, and the same as necessary as if it had been a promise by him made for his meat, drink, or apparel, and in all such cases his promise is good and shall bind him.” OF ACTIONS AGAINST MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS. If a Physician, Surgeon, Apothecary, or other medical practitioner, undertakes the cure of any wound or disease, and by neglect or ignorance the party is not cured, or suffers materially in his health, such medical attendant is liable to damages in an action of trespass on the case: but the person must be a _common Surgeon_[141], or one who makes public profession of such business, as surgeon, apothecary, &c. for otherwise it was the plaintiff’s own folly to trust to an unskilful person, unless such person _expressly_ undertook the cure, and then the action may be maintained against him also. _See Bull. N. P. p._ 73; 2 _Esp. N. P. p._ 601.