The plaintiff, who was a physician living at _Doncaster_, brought this action for fees, for attending a considerable time on the defendant’s testator, who lived at some little distance from the town; and the evidence was, that at _Doncaster_ and its neighbourhood there was no certain rule about fees, but the general practice was for a physician to receive two guineas a week for his attendance. The plaintiff obtained a verdict at the last assizes at _York_; to set aside which _Wood_ obtained a rule _nisi_ last term, on the ground that no action lay for a physician’s fees any more than for a barristers. _Cockell_, Serj. and _Chambre_, now shewed cause; observing that though this point had been ruled several times at _nisi prius_ against such a claim, yet it had never been solemnly decided, nor was there any authority in the books for putting the claim of a physician’s fees upon the same footing as those of a barrister. In the latter case it might originally have been proper that no temptation should be held out to countenance injustice: but in the former it would be equally impolitic that those who are frequently put to expense in attending patients at a distance, and who are liable to make reparation to those who may suffer by their want of skill, should not be certain of a just and honourable reward. The regulation with regard to barristers is founded on grounds of public policy, as appears by the passage in _Tacitus_, to which Mr. J. _Blackstone_ refers; but they are totally inapplicable to the case of physicians. And in that very passage in _Tacitus_ it is taken for granted that the latter were entitled to a remuneration, because their situation was dissimilar to that of advocates. Besides in this case there is an additional reason why the plaintiff should recover, as there is understood to be a general stipulated acknowledgment for a physician’s attendance at the place where this transaction arose. Lord KENYON, Ch. J. I remember a learned controversy some years ago as to what description of persons were intended by the _Medici_ at _Rome_; and it seemed to have been clearly established by Dr. _Mead_, that by those were not meant physicians, but an inferior degree amongst the professors of that art, such as answer rather the description of surgeons amongst us. But at all events it has been understood in this country that the fees of a physician are honorary, and not demandable of right. And it is much more for the credit and rank of that honorable body, and perhaps for their benefit also, that they should be so considered. It never was yet heard of that it was necessary to take a receipt upon such an occasion. And I much doubt whether they themselves would not altogether disclaim such a right as would place them upon a less respectable footing in society than that which they at present hold. _Per Curiam._ Rule absolute. -------