[194] Ruddock v. Low, 4 F. & F., 519; Musser v. Chase, 29 Ohio St., 577.
[195] See particularly Gieselman v. Scott, 25 Ohio St., 86; Lanphier v. Phipos, 8 C. & P., 475; Pym v. Roper, 2 F. & F., 783; Carpenter v. Blake, 60 Barb., 485, 50 N. Y., 696, 10 Hun, 358, 75 N. Y., 12; Leighton v. Sargent, 7 N. H., 460.
[196] Synonymous terms with “reasonable care” are “fair knowledge and skill,” Jones v. Angell, 95 Ind., 376; “ordinary care and skill,” Heath v. Glisan, 3 Oregon, 64.
[197] See Corsi v. Maretzek, 4 E. D. Smith, 1, quoted at p. 362 of this volume.
[198] Small v. Howard, 128 Mass., 131, and cases cited.
[199] Clairvoyancy of course is not recognized in the courts as medical or surgical practice. And any one professing to treat patients as a clairvoyant must be held to the standard of regular practising physicians in the neighborhood where the clairvoyant operates. Nelson v. Harrington, 72 Wis., 591; Bibber v. Simpson, 59 Me., 181; Musser v. Chase, 29 Ohio St., 577.
[200] McCandless v. McWha, 22 Pa. St., 261; Carpenter v. Blake, supra; Leighton v. Sargent, supra.
[201] Kelley v. Hay, 84 Ind., 189; Stone v. Evans, 32 Minn., 243; Teft v. Wilcox, 6 Kans., 646; Brooke v. Clark, 57 Tex., 105; Graunis v. Branden, 5 Day (Conn.), 260, s. c., 5 Am. Dec., 143; Wenger v. Calder, 78 Ill., 275; Carpenter v. Blake, supra.
[202] Hyrne v. Irwin, 23 S. Car., 226, s.c., 55 Am. Rep., 15; Whittaker v. Collins, 34 Minn., 209.
[203] Boor v. Lowrey, 103 Ind., 468.