which will suggest to them the advisability of care in ascertaining in all cases who is responsible for their charge for services. See also Bradley _v._ Dodge, 45 How Pr. (N.Y.), 57; Smith _v._ Riddick, 5 Jones (N. C.), 42. LIABILITY OF THIRD PERSONS CALLING A PHYSICIAN—GENERAL RULE. As to liability for services rendered, when the medical man is called by one person to attend another, it may be stated as a general rule that in order to create such a liability it must appear that the person calling either actually intended to become responsible, or acted in such a manner that the physician was led to suppose that he so intended. _Liability of Railway Company Calling Physician in Case of Accident to Employees, etc._—Another more troublesome question has arisen where physicians and surgeons have been called in by employees of a railway company in case of sudden accident or injury. In one case in New York, the Superior Court of New York City held, that although the general superintendent of a railroad company testified that he had general authority to hire and discharge men, and that he had employed a physician, the railroad company was not liable.[169] This doctrine seems to be opposed to the weight of authority. See cases collated in Vol. 18, “Am. and Eng. Cyclopædia of Law,” p. 434 _et seq._, some of which are: Toledo, etc., R. R. Co. _v._ Rodrigues, 47 Ill., 188; Same _v._ Prince, 50 Ill., 26; Indianapolis, etc., R. R. _v._ Morris, 67 Ill., 295; Cairo, etc., R. R. Co. _v._ Mahoney, 82 Ill., 73; Atchison, etc., R. R. _v._ Beecher, 24 Kansas, 228. _Same Rule does Not Prevail in United States in Case of Accidents to Passengers._—The cases just noted were all cases of employees. In the cases of injured passengers it has been doubted whether the same rule applied, some State courts holding that in that case there is no obligation to furnish medical and surgical attendance, but that the physician attending must look to the persons whom they attended. Union Pacific R. R. Co. _v._ Beatty, 35 Kansas, 265; Brown _v._ Missouri, 67 Missouri, 122. _Different in England._—In England a different rule prevails—one more humane and in consonance with the moral obligation imposed by the relationship of the parties. In Walker _v._ The Great Western R. R. Co., a recent case (Law Reports, 2 Exch., 228), Chief-Justice Kelley, in the course of the argument, made this remark: “Must a board be convened before a man who has his legs broken can have medical attendance?” But in Cox _v._ The Midland Counties R. R. Co. (3 Wellsby, H. & G., 268), the station master, employed as the chief officer of the passenger and other departments, called in a surgeon to perform an operation upon a passenger injured by a train. The road was held not liable.