West v. Emanuel

47 A. 965, 198 Pa. 180, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 754
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 7, 1901
DocketAppeal, No. 105
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 47 A. 965 (West v. Emanuel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
West v. Emanuel, 47 A. 965, 198 Pa. 180, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 754 (Pa. 1901).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

At the close of the plaintiff’s case and on motion of the defendant, the court entered a compulsory nonsuit, which on application of the plaintiff, it refused to take off. As the evidence introduced by the plaintiff failed to establish or disclose a cause of action against the defendant, the nonsuit was properly entered. The Kohler headache powders were in demand at least [182]*182twelve or fifteen years ago and from that time on they were to be found for sale in most, if not all, of the principal drug stores. They were recognized and regarded as an efficient and proper remedy for headaches and were mainly used to relieve them. They were a patent or proprietary medicine manufactured by Kohler and sold by him to the drug stores which sold them to their customers. In the sales of patent or proprietary medicines furnished by the compounder of the ingredients which compose them, the druggist is not required to analyze the contents of each bottle or package he receives. If he delivers to the consumer the article called for with the label of the proprietary or patentee upon it, he cannot be justly charged with negligence in so doing.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Webb v. Zern
220 A.2d 853 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1966)
Parker v. State
201 Misc. 416 (New York State Court of Claims, 1951)
Sencer v. Carl's Market
45 So. 2d 671 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1950)
Kratz Et Vir v. American Stores Co.
59 A.2d 138 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1948)
Canterman v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
55 Pa. D. & C. 175 (Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas, 1945)
Bonenberger v. Pittsburgh Mercantile Co.
28 A.2d 913 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1942)
Bel v. Adler
11 S.E.2d 495 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1940)
Smith, Et Vir v. Burdine's, Inc.
198 So. 223 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1940)
Elizabeth Arden, Inc. v. Brown
107 F.2d 938 (Third Circuit, 1939)
People v. Heron
90 P.2d 154 (California Court of Appeal, 1939)
People v. Heron
34 Cal. App. 2d 755 (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, 1939)
Ebbert v. Philadelphia Electric Co.
198 A. 323 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Howard v. Jacobs' Pharmacy Co.
189 S.E. 373 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)
Tiedje v. Haney
239 N.W. 611 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1931)
Martin v. Bartell Drug Co.
284 P. 96 (Washington Supreme Court, 1930)
McMurray v. Vaughn's Seed Store
157 N.E. 567 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1927)
Checchio v. Goldman Sons
8 Pa. D. & C. 1 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1926)
Highland Pharmacy, Inc. v. White
131 S.E. 198 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1926)
Bruce v. State Serum & Supply Co.
190 Iowa 343 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1920)
Peaslee-Gaulbert Co. v. McMath's Admr.
146 S.W. 770 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 A. 965, 198 Pa. 180, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/west-v-emanuel-pa-1901.