Allegheny County v. Watt

In taking an inquisition of death, super visum coyyoris, the coroner, as a public agent, has authority to order a post mortem examination at the public charge; and the physician or surgeon employed by him, to perform such service, as employed by the county, and is entitled to a reasonable compensation from the county, for his services.

Error to the Common Pleas of Allegheny county. September 14. This was an appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, in assumpsit brought by George Watt, the defendant in error, who was a physician, against the county of Allegheny, the plaintiff in error, to recover a compensation for professional services rendered, in making a post mortem examination, as to the causes of death, in two cases, at the request of the coroner. The justice gave judgment for $30, in favour of the plaintiff; when the defendant appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. By consent of the parties, all matters of fact, in controversy in this case, were submitted to referees. The questions of law arising upon the facts were reserved for the decision of the court. The report of the referees, setting forth the facts found by them, was to have the effect of a special verdict; and the court was to proceed thereupon, in like manner as upon a special verdict. Either party was to have a writ of error to the judgment entered thereupon, as in the case of a judgment entered upon a special verdict. The referees made the following report, in which all the facts, as given in evidence, are stated. “ On the 25th September, 1844, a coroner’s inquest was held upon the body of Eliza Abbot, found dead in Pittsburgh. The jury could not agree as to the cause of the death, and refused to come to any decision, until a physician was called, and a post mortem examination made of the body, and requested that it. might be done. • The coroner, Mr. Hartz, called on Dr. Watt, the plaintiff in this case, and requested him to attend. Dr. Watt went to the place, and made a post mortem examination, employing chemical tests, to ascertain 'the presence of poison in the body of the deceased. He then gave satisfactory evidence before the jury, and they thereupon returned a verdict. “In March, 1845, a coroner’s inquest was also held upon the body of Jane Bard, found dead in Pittsburgh. The jury, in this case also, were unable to agree as to the cause of the death, and requested a post mortem examination of the body be made by a physician. The coroner, Mr. Hartz, again called in Dr. Watt, the plaintiff, who went to the place, and made a postmortem examination of the body, and then gave satisfactory evidence before the jury, upon which, they rendered a verdict. “ The plaintiff seeks in this case to recover from the defendant, compensation for the above-mentioned services. ‘‘ Upon the above state of the facts, if the court should be of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, the undersigned then find and award for the plaintiff, the sum of thirty dollars, ($30 00,) with costs of suit; but if the court should be of opinion, that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, we then find, and award for the defendant, with costs of suit.” The court (Patton, President) directed judgment to be entered for the plaintiff, on the award filed. The defendant, thereupon, removed the record to this court, by writ of error, and assigned the following errors: «1. That upon the state of facts found by the referees, the coroner, Mr. Hartz, had no authority, either express or implied, to make a contract with the defendant in error, for the performance of the services in said report mentioned, by which the county could be bound. “ 2. That the facts found by the referees do not raise any implied obligation on the plaintiff in error to compensate the defendant in error, for the services rendered by him. 1 “ 3. That the court erred in rendering judgment for the defendant in error, whereas, under the facts reported, they should have entered judgment for the plaintiff in error.” The single question here is, has a coroner the power to contract with a physician or surgeon for a post mortem examination as to the cause of death in cases of murder, suicide, manslaughter, or death caused by casualties ? This case was brought up by the commissioners for the purpose of ascertaining, definitely, their legal bounden duty in cases of this kind. If the county have to pay a physician for such services, the commissioners should be consulted. They are the representatives of the county. Under the act of the 31st January, 1833, Pamph. Laws, 21, the number of jurors and the fees to be paid each are regulated. This, together with the general fee bill of the 28th March, 1814, regulates the fees of the coroner and the jurors to be summoned by him. Physicians are nowhere recognised by law as entitled to fees or payment for services to be rendered in the discharge of the official duties of the coroner. Officers recognised by law, sheriffs for instance, have attempted to enforce payment for services not provided for by the fee bill, and their claims disallowed by this court. The county has a regular physician, who, if such services are to be paid for, is always at hand and fully competent to perform them. A physician is but a witness in such cases. We contend that the coroner has no such power. They cited Irwin v. Commissioners of Northumberland county, 1 Serg. & Rawle, 506; Commissioners of Mercer county v. Patterson, 2 Rawle, 106; Ward v. SajSpington, 4 Watts, 247, 10 Johns. 352. When a physician or surgeon is called upon professionally, by the coroner, to make an examination as to the cause of death, it is under the implied promise that he will be paid for his services. Wherever services, particularly of a professional character, are rendered by one, at the request of another, in the absence of an express agreement, there is an implied promise that these services are to be remunerated. A physician should, in such cases, be paid a reasonable compensation for his services. If it were otherwise, hard and unjust would be the case. It cannot and should not be the law, that he shall render important -and arduous services, for which he is not to be paid. The public are deeply interested in these examinations, and the representatives of the public should pay, or be authorized to pay, the individual making them. He cited 2 Serg. & Rawle, 195,7 Watts, 290.