Am.  Jour.  Pharm.  ) 
Feb.,  1883.  J 
Ediiorial. 
EDITORIAL  DEPARTMENT. 
The  Property  in  Prescriptions.— We  have  discussed  this  question, 
repeatedly  in  this  Journal,  so  that  it  would  seem  to  be  entirely  unnecessary 
to  again  refer  to  it,  if  it  was  not  for  an  expression  by  the  "  London  Lancet,'^ 
which  in  our  opinion,  is  based  on  equity  and  free  from  sentimentality.  We 
copy  from  the  "Pharmaceutical  Journal  and  Transactions,"  January  6, 
page  554. 
"  In  the  '  Lancet,'  last  week,  a  case  is  put  by  a  patient  who  received  a  pre- 
scription from  his  doctor,  with  an  intimation  that  it  could  only  be  made  up 
at  a  certain  establishment.  Some  time  afterwards,  considering  himself  to 
be  in  need  of  the  same  medicine,  he  took  the  prescription  to  the  same 
chemist,  who,  however,  refused  to  make  it  up  on  the  ground  that  he  had 
been  told  by  the  doctor  not  to  dispense  it  without  his  sanction,  and  this- 
statement  was  confirmed  on  communicating  with  the  medical  man.  The 
patient  contends  that  the  prescriiDtion  is  his  proi)erty,  and  that  he  is  free  to 
have  it  made  up  every  day  if  he  chooses,  and  asks  the  opinion  of  the  editor 
of  the  'Lancet'  on  the  point.  The  answer  given,  which  at  any  rate  can- 
not be  said  to  be  wanting  in  '  lucidity,'  is  as  follows:  'A  medical  man  is 
at  liberty  to  make  his  own  ternjs  as  to  attendance,  but  the  system  described 
in  our  correspondent's  letter  is  not  generally  practiced  or  approved.  A 
medical  man  either  dispenses  or  prescribes.  If  he  prescribes,  the  prescrip- 
tion ought  to  be  the  property  of  the  patient,  to  be  used  when  and  how  he 
pleases,  and  ought  to  be  written  so  that  it  may  be  compounded  by  any 
legally  qualified  chemist."  ' 
Liebig's  Extract  of  Meat.— We  learn  from  the  "Pharmaceutical 
Journal  and  Transactions,"  November  19,  1882,  that  a  judgment  has  been 
rendered  by  Justice  Field,  in  a  suit  brought  by  the  Liebig's  Extract  of 
Meat  Company,  against  R.  W.  Anderson,  who  is  the  manufacturer  of  an 
article  called  "  Baron  Liebig's  Extract  of  Meat."  It  was  claimed  that  the 
use  of  the  name  was  an  infringement  on  the  right  of  the  Company ;  but 
the  judge,  after  a  full  review  of  the  testimony,  decided  that  the  Company 
possessed  no  exclusive  right  to  the  use  of  either  the  process  or  the  name, 
and  that  the  liberty  which  there  is  for  every  man  to  sell  his  goods  by  the 
title  which  he  thinks  most  attractive  should  not  be  restrained  unless  it  is 
proved  that  what  he  is  doing  is  reasonably  calculated  to  deceive.  Such  an 
attempt  at  deception  was  not  found  in  the  mere  use  of  the  name  or  in  the 
similarity  of  the  jar,  which  is  capped  in  a  different  manner  from  that  used 
by  the  Company,  and  is  supplied  with  a  different  label,  bearing  neither  a. 
certificate  nor  the  signature  of  Liebig,  but  displaying  his  portrait. 
In  the  evidence  it  was  brought  out  that  the  so-called  Liebig's  process  was 
discovered  and  published  by  Proust,  in  1801,  that  Liebig  made  the  process 
more  practicable  in  1847,  and  that,  after  a  demand  for  the  article  as  food  had 
been  created,  in  1863  he  became  associated  with  the  Fray  Bentos  Company, 
he  and  Professor  Pettenkofer  receiving  two  per  cent,  of  the  net  profits  real- 
ized for  examining  the  extract  and  for  allowing  it  to  be  sold  with  his  sig- 
nature attached. 
About  sixteen  years  ago  a  similar  case  was  decided  in  favor  of  a  Liebig's 
extract  of  meat,  manufactured  in  Australia,  for  Allen  &  Hanburys,  of  Lon- 
