_Liabilities of Partners, etc._—It has been held that where two physicians were partners, and one of them committed an act of negligent malpractice, both were liable in a civil court for damages.[202] But the declarations of the partner who is guilty of the negligent act, made as to the act committed, and in the absence of the other partner, are not admissible as against the other partner. And so also is the rule as to declarations of the partner who committed the act after its commission as to the propriety of the treatment, and opinions expressed by him in reference thereto.[203] It has also been held that one surgeon who recommends the employment of another during his absence from town is not liable for acts committed during his absence.[204] _Suits for Injuries to Married Women and Minor Children._—When the person injured is a married woman, her husband may sue for loss of services on account of malpractice, and when the injured person is a minor child the parent may sue as in any case of negligence. A third person, such as the husband of a woman injured by malpractice, or the father of minor child so injured, can only recover the value of the services thereby lost, and in some cases the enhanced expense of medical attention and nursing thereby rendered necessary. =Inspection of the Injured Person at the Trial—Before Trial Improper.=—In an action in which the injury is to a portion of the body which may be seen, such as the shortening of a limb on account of improper treatment of a fracture, the limb may be exhibited to the jury. It has been much discussed whether the defendant in a malpractice or other negligence case can compel the plaintiff to permit his person to be examined by physicians before trial, to enable the defendant to know the full extent of the injury so far as it is perceptible. In the latest cases the examination of plaintiff before trial was not allowed.[205] In 1877 the Supreme Court of Iowa in the case of Schroder _v._ C., R. I. & P. R. R. Co., 47 Iowa, 375, held that the court had inherent power and jurisdiction to compel the plaintiff to submit to such an examination. This decision has been followed by the courts of several of the western and southern States, while in others the power has been denied. These cases will be found fully collected in Roberts _v._ O. & L. C. R. Co. and in U. P. R. R. Co. _v._ Botsford cited above. The ground of the decision of the United States Supreme Court and of the New York Court of Appeals seems to be, that in the absence of legislative provision permitting a court to order such an examination, it has no inherent power to do so, and did not derive any such powers from the common-law courts of England, which never had exercised such powers.