& Ell. (N. S.), 927, it is said: “A physician attends in every case on request; that fact alone is not enough for the inference of a special contract;” and see Sellen _v._ Norman, 4 Carr. & P., 284. Still less where there has been no special request by the father to the physician, and no more than acquiescence in his calls. As it would be unnatural for the parent of an invalid child, though legally emancipated, or for an intimate and confidential friend of hers, not to know the rise and course of her malady, not to be interested in the state of it as disclosed at any time to skilled inspection, not to be so anxious as to be in waiting when scientific skill was to be applied for its cure, not to be ready to receive directions for treatment in the intervals; so it is not to be implied in the one case more than in the other that, from these manifestations, because unaccompanied with an express repudiation of liability, a liability may be implied. They are to be referred to natural affection and friendly sympathy, rather than to an acquiescence in the rendition of a personal benefit, or counted as acts done under a sense of legal obligation.” The Court further said that “even if it should be assumed that the usage exists that the physician called to consult with him who is in attendance, with the consent of the person who has employed the latter, is in contemplation of law in the hire of that person, still the assent of the defendant to the calling in of the consulting physician, and his expression of desire to be present when he came—until he is shown to have employed the plaintiff—is a basis too weak for an implication of law, that he promised to pay his consultation fees. Still less it is a fact from which to imply a promise to pay the plaintiff.” This case is, however, close to the border line, and it may be well criticised and denied its apparent full weight of authority, notwithstanding the very great learning and ability of the learned Judge Folger, who wrote the opinion, upon the ground that it appears that the father had as a witness expressly denied calling in the plaintiff or authorizing anybody to call him in, or authorizing the employment of a consulting physician, and that on the trial the Court had found upon the whole testimony in the case that the defendant had never employed the plaintiff. Taking the decision as a whole it cannot be regarded as determining that upon such a set of circumstances as is there disclosed, the father could not in any event have been held liable, but rather that the trial court having found upon the whole testimony that the defendant was not liable, having witnesses before it fully able to judge of their capability, the appellate court could not say as a matter of law that a finding in favor of the defendant should be overruled. This case is considered here at some length chiefly for the purpose of affording an illustration to physicians and surgeons