Notwithstanding the New York law of 1874, one can undertake to effect cures by manipulation without possessing a diploma. He may even maintain an action for the compensation agreed upon, although not a graduate and having no license to practise. A man professed to cure by rubbing, kneading and pressing the body. The court considered his system was rather one of nursing than of either medicine or surgery, and that it could not result in any injury to the person practised upon than that of possible financial loss [106]. Yet, in Maine, where a license is required, even a “medical clairvoyant” was held to come within the statute, and it was decided that he could not render his professional services without having the legal permission. In England, an unregistered person sued to recover his charges for galvanic operations, and for materials and electric fluid used therein. The jury decided in favour of the galvanizer, and the court |52| would not disturb the verdict, as the work was done before the Act of 1858 came into operation, but expressed a strong opinion that if the work had not been done when it was, it would have been impossible to hold that the case did not fall within the statute [107]. A physician must practise according to the principles of his school. There are distinct and different schools of practice; allopathic or old school, homœopathic, Thompsonian, hydropathic or water cure; and if a physician of one of those schools is called in, his treatment is to be tested by the general doctrines of his school, not by those of other schools. It is presumed that patient and physician both understand this [108]. A person professing to follow one system of medical treatment cannot be expected by his employer to practise another. While the regular physician is expected to follow the rules of the old school in the art of curing, the botanic physician must be equally expected to adhere to his adopted method. While on the part of every medical practitioner the law implies an undertaking that he will use an ordinary degree of care and skill in medical operations, and he is unquestionably liable for gross carelessness or unskilfulness in the management of his patients, still the person who employs a botanic practitioner has no right to expect the same kind of treatment or the same kind of medicine that a regular physician would administer. The law does not require a man to accomplish more than he undertakes, nor in a different manner from what he professes. So, if one is employed as a botanic physician, and performs his services with ordinary care and skill, in accordance with the system he professes to follow, that will be regarded as a legal defence to a suit for malpractice. It would show a full |53| compliance with his profession and undertaking, and if injury resulted to the plaintiff he could blame no one but himself [109].