41ut5SP"j        Compounding  and  Dispensing.  3Sl 
possible  serious  consequences,  and  he  guarantees  in  the  operation 
of  his  business  that  he  possesses  the  requisite  scientific  knowledge 
and  skill. 
The  common  law  doctrine,  caveat  emptor,  let  the  purchaser 
beware,  is  reversed  in  the  case  of  the  pharmacist  and  the  doctrine  is 
that  of  the  civil  law,  let  the  seller  beware,  caveat  venditor. 
In  the  case  of  Fleet  vs.  Hollencamp,  10  Massachusetts  Reports 
197,  the  plaintiff  sued  the  defendant  for  negligently  permitting  a 
portion  of  the  poisonous  drug,  cantharides,  to  be  intermingled  with 
some  snake  root  and  Peruvian  bark,  which  latter  he  had  been  ordered 
to  take  on  the  advice  of  his  physician  and  in  consequence  of  which 
he  had  been  rendered  very  sick.  It  seems  that  a  short  time  before 
the  defendant,  or  an  employee  in  his  store,  had  ground  up  the  can- 
tharides and  without  cleaning  the  mill  had  prepared  the  preparation 
ordered  by  the  plaintiff.  The  Court  in  its  opinion  stated  that  "  the 
general  customer  is  not  supposed  to  be  skilled  in  the  matter  and,  as 
represented  in  this  case,  does  not  know  one  drug  from  another, 
but  in  the  purchase  of  drugs  the  customer  must  rely  upon  the 
druggist  to  furnish  the  article  called  for  and  in  this  particular  busi- 
ness the  customer  who  has  not  the  experience  and  learning  necessary 
to  a  proper  vending  of  drugs  would  not  be  held  to  the  rule  that  he 
must  examine  for  himself.  On  the  contrary  the  business  is  such 
that  in  the  very  nature  of  things  the  druggist  must  be  held  to  warrant 
that  he  will  deliver  the  drug  called  for  and  purchased  by  a  customer. 
It  must  be  considered,  as  decided  in  this  case,  that  the  pharmacist  is 
guilty  of  negligence  if  he  does  not  apply  the  knowledge  and  skill 
he  is  presumed  to  have  with  ordinary  care,  but  as  was  said  in 
Brown  vs.  Marshall,  47  Michigan  Reports  576,  the  pharmacist  is 
held  to  a  stricter  accountability  in  the  matter  of  the  ordinary  care 
exercised  by  a  prudent  man,  because  of  the  possible  serious  con- 
sequences of  his  act  and  because  of  his  superior  knowledge." 
The  responsibility  is  the  same  in  compounding  a  prescription 
as  in  dispensing  a  drug  and  the  proprietor  is  responsible  for  the 
acts  of  his  clerk,  if  the  latter  is  acting  within  the  scope  of  his 
employment.  In  the  case  of  McCubin  vs.  Hastings,  spirits  of 
camphor  was  substituted  for  camphor  water,  ordered  in  the  pre- 
scription of  the  attending  physician.  The  prescription  was  com- 
pounded by  the  clerk  in  the  store  of  the  defendant.  The  defendant 
was  absent  from  the  city  at  the  time  and  the  services  of  this  clerk 
had  been  engaged  by  his  brother.  The  Court,  nevertheless,  held 
the  defendant  was  none  the  less  responsible,  the  employment  was 
