_The Relation of Physician and Patient._—Under each of the statutes, the relation of physician and patient must have existed at the time the information was acquired. In those cases where the relation is established by contract and is recognized by both physician and patient as existing, no difficulty arises in determining that it does exist. It is in those cases where some one of these elements is lacking that the difficulties are met. In California it has been held that the relation exists where a physician attends and prescribes for a person, notwithstanding he was employed by another, who seeks to disclose the evidence.[388] In Michigan, where the physician was employed by direction of the prosecuting attorney to examine the defendant in jail, and so notified the defendant at the outset of the examination, and he submitted voluntarily to a personal examination, and there was no intention to prescribe or to act as the defendant’s physician, it was held that the relation did not exist, and that the physician could testify as to the defendant’s physical condition.[389] In one New York case it has been said that the relation is one of contract, and that the test is whether the physician would be chargeable with malpractice or negligence for failure to advise or prescribe in case the alleged patient were in urgent need of it at the time.[390] But the decisions of the Court of Appeals extend the privilege to cases where this test would lead to a different conclusion.[391] Where the physician to a county jail was called in to attend a prisoner and examined him, though there was no prescription at the time, but it appeared that the doctor told the prisoner what he should prescribe, and subsequently two physicians came to see the prisoner at the instance of the coroner and examined him as they would have examined one of their patients, though they did not prescribe and had no conversation about a prescription, it was held that the prisoner had, under the circumstances, reason to suppose that the relation of physician and patient did exist between him and all three of the physicians, and that their testimony as to what they learned on such visits should have been excluded; and the rule is thus stated: whenever the patient has reason to suppose that the relation exists and does in fact and truth so suppose, in a case where the physician attends under circumstances calculated to induce the opinion that his visit is of a professional nature, and the visit is so regarded and acted upon by the person attended, the relation of physician and patient contemplated by the statute may fairly be said to exist.[392]