[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
November 17, 1894


JAMA. 1894;XXIII(20):765-766. doi:10.1001/jama.1894.02421250027004

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


The relation which exists between druggist and physician is one peculiar in its character. What are the legal rights and liabilities thereof, on the druggist's side, furnishes not only to him, but to the physician, an interesting and important subject for contemplation.

As a general proposition, the Supreme Court of Louisiana declares, in the case of Tarlton v. Lagarde (decided July, 1894, but just reported in the advance sheets of 16 Southern Reporter 180) it can not be conceded that the mere refusal of a druggist to fill prescriptions furnishes any occasion to hold him for damages to the physician who gives the prescription. In many cases the druggist may have the best reason for declining. As a chemist, he may perceive, or have cause to suspect, the physician erred in his prescription. Or the druggist may not have at hand the ingredients, or he may distrust his ability to

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview