v. Kendall, 167 Fed. 62, 93 C. C. A. 422, 16 Ann. Cas. 560.
Where a plaintiff in an action for an in jury to his knee, while on the witness stand, voluntarily exhibits the injured knee to the jury, the defendant is entitled to require him to submit the same to surgical examina tion, and the court has power, independently of any statute, to compel such submission ; Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Kendall, 167 Fed. 62, 93 C. C. A. 422, 16 Ann. Cas. 560. Such an order was held ultra vires; 46 L.
J. 696. But the statute 31 & 32 Viet. c. 19, § 26, authorizes any judge of a court in which an action is pending to recover dam ages for a railway accident to order an ex amination of the person injured; 43 L. J. Rep. Exch. 150.
But while it has been held that the de fendant has no absolute right to have a personal physical examination of the plain tiff made, in an action for personal injuries, yet in the discretion of the court- such ex amination may be made, if essential for the ascertainment of truth or to subserve the ends of justice; Owens v. R. Co., 95 Mo. 169, 8 S. W. 350, 6 Am. St. Rep. 39 ; Ala. G. S. R. R. Co. v. Hill, 90 Ala. 71, 8 South. 90, 9 L. R. A. 442, 24 Am. St. Rep. 764; Hall v. Manson, 99 Ia. 698, 68 N. W. 922, 34 L. R. A. 207; Edwards v. Three Rivers, 96 Mich. 625, 55 N. W. 1003; Carrico v. Ry. Co., 39 W. Va. 86, 19 S. E. 571, 24 L. R. A. 50; Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Childress, 82 Ga. 719, 9 S. E. 602, 3 L. R. A. 808, 14 Am.. St. Rep. 189; White v. Ry. Co., 61 Wis. 536, 21 N. W. 524, 50 Am. Rep. 154 ; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co.
v. Thul, 29 Kan. 466, 44 Am. Rep. 659 ; Lane v. Ry. Co., 21 Wash. 119, 57 Pac. 367, 46 L. R. A. 153, 75 Am. St. Rep. 821; Schroeder v. R. Co., 47 Ia. 375.
A plaintiff, in an action for personal in juries alleged to have caused the secretion of albumen and sugar, may be required to produce in court, for analysis, specimens of his urine, accompanied by an affidavit that it was voided by him ; the privacy of his person not being thereby invaded; Cleve land, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Huddleston, 151 Ind. 540, 46 N. B. 678, 36 L. R. A. 681, 68 Am. St. Rep. 238. See 13 Harv. L. Rev. 224.
It is within the discretion of the court to refuse to require the plaintiff to submit to a physical examination which requires the administration of anaesthetics ; Strudgeon v.
Sand Beach, 107 Mich. 496, 65 N. W. 616.
In some courts plaintiffs are allowed to exhibit to the jury their injuries, and to Perform physical acts showing the nature and extent of their injuries ; Schroeder v. R. Co., 47 Ia. 375; Hatfield v. R. Co., 33 Minn. 130, 22 N. W. 176, 53 Am. Rep. 14; but other courts hold this to be improper, be cause such evidence cannot be preserved in a bill of exceptions for use in an appellate court ; 19 Cent. L. J. 144; and where a juror was allowed to manipulate the plain tiff's injured hand, it was error, although ex hibiting it was proper ; Vance v. Drug Co., 149 Ill. App. 499.
In a trial of an action of trespass for as sault and battery, it is not error to permit the jury to examine with their fingers scars on the plaintiff's head caused by a blow from defendant's pistol; Jackson v. Wells, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 275, 35 S. W. 528.
A court of equity will not, in a patent case, even if it bad the power, require the respondent, claiming under an alleged an ticipating patent, to perform experiments in the presence of plaintiff's witnesses, ex cept where so extraordinary a course is nec essary ; Simonds Rolling Mach. Co. v. Mfg. Co., 83 Fed. 490.
In an action for breach of warranty on a sale of a horse, the court has no power to order that the defendant have the privilege of sending a veterinary surgeon into the plaintiff's stable to examine the horse; Mar tin v. Elliott, 106 Mich. 130, 63 N. W. 998, 31 IA R. A. 169.
In a suit for divorce on the ground of impotence a court has power to compel the parties to submit to a surgical examination when facts essential to a correct decision may thereby be ascertained; Devanbagh v.. Devanbagh, 5 Paige (N. Y.) 554, 28 Am. Dec. 443; Anonymous, 89 Ala. 291, 7 South. 100, 7 L. R. A. 425, 18 Am. St. Rep. 116 ; 32 L. J. Mat. 12 ; in divorce proceeding because of malformation of the wife the court made an order for her inspection, but did not re quire the husband to submit to inspection; 16 Week. Rep. 943.