A consideration of the legal aspects of chiropractic : and more particularly of the question whether or not chiropractic is included within the terms of the Michigan Medical Act-Act. No. 237, Public Laws of 1899, as amended-and is subject to the provisions of that act. Brief, argument and authorities for the affirmative / by Loesch, Scofield & Loesch, Counsel for American Medical Association.

  • Loesch, Scofield & Loesch, Chicago.
Date:
[1911]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A consideration of the legal aspects of chiropractic : and more particularly of the question whether or not chiropractic is included within the terms of the Michigan Medical Act-Act. No. 237, Public Laws of 1899, as amended-and is subject to the provisions of that act. Brief, argument and authorities for the affirmative / by Loesch, Scofield & Loesch, Counsel for American Medical Association. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

    34/94 (page 26)
    IV. CHIROPRACTIC IS INCLUDED IN THE MEANING OF THE WORD PRACTICE OF MEDICINE OR SURGERY AND PRACTICE OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY IN ANY OF ITS BRANCHES AS USED IN THE MICH- IGAN MEDICAL ACT State V. Miller (1910), — Iowa —; 124 N. W., 167. Bragg v. State (1902), 134 Ala., 165; 58 L. E. A., 925; 35 S., 767. People V. Allcuti (1907), 102 N. Y., SuppL, 678; 117 App. Div., 546 : affirmed b}^ Court of Appeals in 189 K Y., 517; 81 N. E., 1171. Commonwealth v. Jewelle (1908), 199 Mass., 558; 85 K E., 858. Heivitt V. Charier (1835), 33 Mass. (16 Pickering), 353. People V. Phippin (1888), 70 Michigan 6; 37 ^t. w., 888. State V. Buswell (1894), 40 ]^eb., 158; 24 L. E. A., 68; 58 N. W., 728. Little V. State (1900) 60 Neb., 749; 51 L. E. A., 717; 84 N. w., 248. Gee Wo v. State (1893), 36 Xeb., 241; 54 N. W., 513. O'Neil V. State (1905), 115 Tenn., 427; 3 L. E. A. (N. S.), 762; 90 S. A¥., 627. Commonwealth v. St. Pierre (1899), 175 Mass., 48; 55 K E., 482. Bandel v. Dept. of Health of City of New York (1908), 193 N. Y., 133; 85 N. E., 1067. State V. Heath (1904), 125 Iowa, 585; 101 N. W., 429. * State V. Edmunds (1904), 127 Iowa, 333; 101 N. W., 431. State V. Adkins (1910), — Iowa, —; 124 K. W., 627. State V. WilMte (1906), 132 Iowa, 226; 109 K W., 730; 11 A. & E. Ann. Cas., 180. State V. Yegge (1905), 19 S. D., 234; 103 N. W., 17. Ex parte Collins (1909), 57 Tex. Crim., 2; 121 S. W., 501. Newman v. State (1910), — Texas, —; 124 S. W., 956. Wittij V. State (1910), — Ind., —; 25 L. E. A. (N. S.), 1297; 90 N. E., 62. Paris V. State (1902), 159 Ind., 211; 59 L. E. A., 190; 64 X. E., 862. Eastman v. People, for use, etc. (1897), 71 111. App., 236. Jones V. People, for use, etc. (1899), 84 111. App., 453. State V. Gravett (1901), 65 Ohio St., 289; 55 L. E. A., 791; 87 A. S. E., 605; 62 N. E., 325. State V. Marhle (1905), 72 Ohio St., 21; 70 L. E. A., 835; 73 Js^. E., 1063.