On the other hand, in Langan _v._ Great Western R. R. Co. (30 Law Times, N. S., 173), a sub-inspector of railway police was held to have implied power to employ a surgeon for an injured employee. But in Arkansas an attorney for a railroad company was held not authorized to do so. St. Louis, etc., R. R. Co. _v._ Hoover, 53 Ark., 377. _Doctrine in Indiana the More Sensible One._—The more sensible doctrine seems to be established in this country, in the State of Indiana at least, in the case of Terre Haute R. R. Co. _v._ McMurray (98 Ind., 358), in which the Court held that where there was great necessity for the employment of a surgeon, the conductor of a train has authority to employ the surgeon, if the conductor is the highest officer in rank on the ground at the time. But in that case the Court expressly states that this liability grows out of the exigencies of the case; not out of any theory of general authority. _Authority of Railroad Physician to Employ Nurses, etc., Doubtful._—It has also been disputed whether the authority of the company’s physician extended far enough to render the company liable for services performed by nurses employed by him, or for board and lodging engaged by him for injured employees. In Bingham _v._ Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. (79 Iowa, 534), it was held that the authority was sufficient, but in that case testimony appeared tending to show that an agent of the company who had authority to employ the physician had authorized him to employ two nurses. The converse doctrine—namely, that the fact that a physician of the company was authorized to buy medicines on the credit of the company does not authorize the inference that he has power to render the company liable by a contract for board and nursing of a person injured on the company’s road—was held in Maber _v._ The Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 75 Missouri, 495; Brown _v._ The Missouri R. R., 67 Missouri, 122. To the same effect, see Louisville, etc., R. R. Co. _v._ McVeigh, 98 Ind., 391; Cooper _v._ N. Y. C. & C., 6 Hun, 276; and St. Louis, etc., R. R. Co. _v._ Hoover, 53 Arkansas, 377. 2 Redfield on Railways, 114: On the other hand, where a physician and surgeon has been duly employed by a sub-officer or servant of the railroad company, ratification of this employment, by those having authority to employ him and to render the company liable, will be inferred from slight circumstances. Such was the case of Louisville R. R. Co. _v._ McVeigh, which has been cited.