Thedford Medicine Co. v. Curry
Supreme Court of Georgia
Action for damages. Before Judge Henry. Floyd superior court. March term, 1894. To the petition of the M. A. Thedford Medicine Company against Curry, as amended, the defendant demurred. The demurrer was sustained, and plaintiffs excepted.
Read the full summary
Action for damages. Before Judge Henry. Floyd superior court. March term, 1894. To the petition of the M. A. Thedford Medicine Company against Curry, as amended, the defendant demurred. The demurrer was sustained, and plaintiffs excepted. The petition alleged: Plaintiffs have been in business in Rome, Ga., since November, 1890, in manufacturing and selling medicine now called M. A. Thedford’s Black Draught, which they prepared and sold for profit long before January 1, 1894. Curry, a wholesale and retail druggist of Rome, intending to injure plaintiffs in the sale of their said medicine and…
1Opinion of the Court
Lumpkin, Justice.
The reporter’s statement sets forth, in brief, the substance of the plaintiffs’ declaration, as amended, and of the demurrer filed to the same. While the declaration is, perhaps, unnecessarily voluminous, and contains numerous allegations which would not, of themselves, show any right of recovery, we think that as a whole it sets forth a cause of action, and that it was error to sustain the demurrer.
The most material allegations of the declaration are summarized in the head-note. It would seem, that if the plaintiffs were engaged in a profitable business, which consisted of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Foster, Milburn & Co. v. Blood Balm Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1887
- Logan v. GoodallSupreme Court of Georgia · 1871
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hagan & Dodd Co. v. RigbersCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907