Blood Balm Co. v. Cooper
Supreme Court of Georgia
Torts. Proprietary medicines. Poisons. Nonsuit. Charge of court. Evidence. Before Judge Van Epps. City court of Atlanta.
Read the full summary
Torts. Proprietary medicines. Poisons. Nonsuit. Charge of court. Evidence. Before Judge Van Epps. City court of Atlanta. March term, 1889. Cooper sued the Blood Balm Company, alleging that it had sold or caused to be sold to him a medicine called “ B. B. B.”, which it manufactured and placed on the market and strongly recommended to be taken as a blood purifier, and caused him, by reason of such recommendations and representations, to take the medicine internally, which he did, according to directions, for the purpose of relieving a slight breaking out on the skin of one of his lower limbs.…
1Opinion of the Court
Blandford, Justice.
The main question in this ease arises upon the re*460fusal of the court below to award a nonsuit, and the solution of this question depends upon whether, where one prepares what is known as a proprietary or patent medicine, and puts it upon the market and recommends it to the world as useful for the cure of certain diseases, the bottle containing it having therewith a prescription made by the proprietor of the medicine, in which he states that it is to be taken in certain quantities, and such medicine, accompanied with this prescription, is sold by the proprietor to a druggist…
2Cited by35 opinions
- Mazetti v. Armour & Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1913
- Payne v. Rome Coca-Cola Bottling Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1912
- Tomlinson v. Armour & Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1908
- Watson v. Augusta Brewing Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- Hasbrouck v. Armour & Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.