Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal

more »

... ntent at http://about.jstor.org/participate--jstor/individuals/early-journal--content. JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. RECENT IMPORTANT DECISIONS6 RECENT IMPORTANT DECISIONS6 RECENT IMPORTANT DECISIONS6 Under the law, a druggist was forbidden to sell poisonous drugs in doses except upon the prescription of a physician. The girl said to defendant's clerk that she wanted " a dime's worth of morphine and to please dose it out." The girl testified that the clerk "went to the drawer and got two packages, and handed them to me. I asked him how many grains it was and he said he did not know. I asked him if that was the kind that made you sleep, and he said 'Yes, that will make you sleep all right.'" The girl delivered the packages to the plaintiff's wife, who put the contents of one of them into a glass of water. The girl warned plaintiff's wife that she (the girl) thought that was too much to take at once, to which plaintiff's wife replied that " she guessed the druggist knew what he was doing or ought to," and drank the potion and died. In an action by the husband to recover damages for the death of his wife, Held, that the wife was guilty of such negligence that no recovery could be had. Fowler v. Randall (1903), -Mo. App. -, 73 S. W. Rep. 931. The girl knew, so reasoned the court, that the drug was not put up in doses and, although the girl did not tell the plaintiff's wife of that fact, the plaintiff's wife must, under the law of agency, be conclusively presumed to know what her agent, the girl, knew: MICHEM ON AGENCY & 721. Plaintiff's wife also presumptively knew the law which forbade the sale of the drug in doses. Plaintiff's wife, then, in contemplation'of law knew that the drug was poisonous and that it was not put up in doses. She was warned by the girl against taking so much, but replied that "she guessed the druggist knew his business." She "therefore blindly and recklessly took a packet of morphine at a single dose, without knowing how many grains it contained, and without knowing whether the quantity if taken was a proper or fatal dose. From her act but a single inference is to be drawn, and that is of negligence." As to the liability of druggists for negligence, see I MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW, 63, 130. NEGLIGBNCE-CONTRIBUTORY- PBRsSONAL INJURY-PROXTMATI CAUSE. -Action to recover damages for personal injury. The plaintiff's health had been greatly impaired by overexertion in putting out a fire started upon plaintiff's premises by the negligence of defendant's servants. Held, that the plaintiff may recover. Glanz v. Chicago, M. and St. P. Ry. Co. (1903), -Ia. -, 93 N. W. Rep. 575.