If a druggist miscompounds a medicine, or intentionally deviates from the formula, he commits a tortious act, and |179| if any injury arises to another through his ignorance or neglect he is liable. Even if a physician writes a prescription wrongly it is expected that the druggist will know enough to detect the error, and whether he does so or not he still compounds it at his peril. For one man’s negligence or omission of duty is no palliation of another’s, and under the doctrine of joint liability the apothecary or druggist who compounds, knowingly or not, a noxious prescription, commits a joint tort with the physician who writes it [469]. And in an action against a druggist for injury through the negligence of his clerk in selling sulphate of zinc for Epsom salts, it is no defence to say that the subsequent medical treatment was negligent [470]. A wholesale druggist is liable in the same way as a retail, when he supplies substances notoriously dangerous to health or life, and he impliedly warrants the articles to be as represented by their conventional designation, and if they are not so, he is liable for all damages that may ensue from his misrepresentation [471]. If a druggist affixes to a medicine, or drug, a label bearing his name and stating it to have been prepared by him, he makes the warrant only more notorious, and by so doing (inasmuch as it is an invitation to the public to confide in his representation), is ever after estopped from denying responsibility for any injury which may have arisen out of defects in its quality, or errors in its composition. So long as the label is attached, it is an affirmation of the good quality of the article and its correct composition, to every one who relies upon it when buying. But as some articles deteriorate in time, what is said in relation to the liability of the vendor applies only to the article at the time it leaves |180| his hands. He only warrants its good qualities then, but no longer, and his representation affirms that much, and no more [472]. The subject of labels was carefully considered in _Thomas_ v. _Winchester_ [473], where Ruggles C.J. gave judgment. Mary Ann Thomas was ordered a dose of extract of dandelion, her husband bought what he believed was dandelion from Dr. Foord, druggist and physician; but it was extract of belladonna. The jar was labelled ‘½ ℔ dandelion, prepared by A. Gilbert, No. 108 John street, N. Y.’ Foord bought it as dandelion from James S. Aspinwall, druggist, who bought it from defendant, a druggist, 108 John street. Defendant manufactured some drugs and purchased others, but labelled all in the same way. Gilbert was an assistant who had originally owned the business. The extract in the jar had been purchased from another dealer. The two extracts are alike in colour, consistency, smell and taste. Gilbert’s labels were paid for by defendant and used in his business with his knowledge and consent. A non-suit was moved for on