Mcgregor v. State Co, (No. 10407.)
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | GAGE |
| Citation | 103 S.E. 84 |
| Parties | McGREGOR. v. STATE CO. et al. |
| Docket Number | (No. 10407.) |
| Decision Date | 12 May 1920 |
103 S.E. 84
McGREGOR.
v.
STATE CO. et al.
(No. 10407.)
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
May 12, 1920.
[103 S.E. 84]
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; W. H. Townsend, Judge.
Action by E. C. McGregor, doing business as McGregor's Drug Store, against the State Company and the Irogen Chemical Company. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
The exception referred to is as follows:
The plaintiff herein excepts to the order of his honor W. H. Townsend, presiding judge, dated May 21, 1919, upon the ground:
(1) That his honor erred in holding and adjudging, "I do not think the publication was either libelous or calculated to injure the plaintiff, " because:
(a) The publication was libelous on its face as tending to represent the plaintiff as holding himself out as an indorser and sponsor for a patent medicine.
(b) The said publication was calculated to induce the public to believe that the plaintiff was indorsing and recommending a patent medicine.
(c) The said publication was calculated to injure the plaintiff in his business, reputation, and standing.
(d) The purport and meaning of the said publication should have been submitted to the jury for its determination.
D. W. Robinson, of Columbia, for appellant.
Benet, Shand & McGowan, of Columbia, for respondents.
GAGE, J. Action for libel. Demurrer by the State Company. Order sustaining the demurrer. Appeal by the plaintiff.
The circumstances of the case, apparent from the allegations of the complaint, are these: One of the defendants, the Irogen Chemical Company, was the manufacturer of a patent medicine called Irogen, said to contain "essential elements to red blood corpuscles"; that on March 20, 1918, and on March 24, 1918, there appeared in the State Newspaper an unsigned display print and voluminous advertisement of this medicine, the objectional part of which is thus set out in the complaint:
"Soon after it became known in Columbia that Irogen, the new strength and blood builder, had been discovered, leading druggists here immediately took steps to secure a supply in order that the people of this section might secure the benefit of science's latest effort. Several well-known druggists even went so far as to make a thorough investigation of Irogen and learned of the amazing results said to have been experienced from its use. These well-known men unhesitatingly and voluntarily came forward and declared their belief that the new discovery is the greatest strength builder...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Batson, 33446
...& Wade Land Co. v. Adams, 45 So. 492; Cummer Co. v. Yager, 79 So. 272; McRae v. Stillwell, 55 L.R.A. 513; Johnston v. Powhatan Min. Co., 103 S.E. 84; Thomas v. Gates, 31 F.2d 828; Young v. Camp Mfg. Co., 66 S.E. 843; Carpenter v. Camp Mfg. Co., 71 S.E. 559; Brown v. Surry Lbr. Co., 75 S.E. ......
-
Alderman v. Bivin, 17478
...nothing more than conclusions of fact, which are not admitted by the demurrer. In the case of McGregor v. State Company, 114 S.C. 48, 103 S.E. 84, 85, which was an action for libel, it was alleged in the complaint that the publication was 'libelous.' A demurrer to the complaint was sustaine......
-
Woodworth v. Skeen, (No. 12782.)
...Ragin v. N. W. Ry. Co., 111 S. C. 394, 98 S. E. 286; Cudd v. Rogers, 111 S. C. 507, 98 S. E. 796; McGregor v. State Co., 114 S. C. 48, 103 S. E. 84; Rankin v. S. & K. R. Co., 58 S. C. 532, 36 S. E. 997; Donaldson v. Temple, 96 S. C. 240, 80 S. E. 437; Alexander v. Du Bose, 73 S. C. 21, 52 S......
-
Hosp. Care Corp. v. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co, 15113.
...first cause of action must be sustained under the authority of Hubbard v. Furman University, supra; McGregor v. State Co., 114 S.C. 48, 103 S. E. 84; Oliveros v. Henderson, 116 S.C. 77, 106 S.E. 855; and Duncan v. Record Publishing Co., 145 S.C. 196, 143 S.E. 31. "The fact that supersensiti......
-
Williams v. Batson, 33446
...& Wade Land Co. v. Adams, 45 So. 492; Cummer Co. v. Yager, 79 So. 272; McRae v. Stillwell, 55 L.R.A. 513; Johnston v. Powhatan Min. Co., 103 S.E. 84; Thomas v. Gates, 31 F.2d 828; Young v. Camp Mfg. Co., 66 S.E. 843; Carpenter v. Camp Mfg. Co., 71 S.E. 559; Brown v. Surry Lbr. Co., 75 S.E. ......
-
Alderman v. Bivin, 17478
...nothing more than conclusions of fact, which are not admitted by the demurrer. In the case of McGregor v. State Company, 114 S.C. 48, 103 S.E. 84, 85, which was an action for libel, it was alleged in the complaint that the publication was 'libelous.' A demurrer to the complaint was sustaine......
-
Woodworth v. Skeen, (No. 12782.)
...Ragin v. N. W. Ry. Co., 111 S. C. 394, 98 S. E. 286; Cudd v. Rogers, 111 S. C. 507, 98 S. E. 796; McGregor v. State Co., 114 S. C. 48, 103 S. E. 84; Rankin v. S. & K. R. Co., 58 S. C. 532, 36 S. E. 997; Donaldson v. Temple, 96 S. C. 240, 80 S. E. 437; Alexander v. Du Bose, 73 S. C. 21, 52 S......
-
Hosp. Care Corp. v. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co, 15113.
...first cause of action must be sustained under the authority of Hubbard v. Furman University, supra; McGregor v. State Co., 114 S.C. 48, 103 S. E. 84; Oliveros v. Henderson, 116 S.C. 77, 106 S.E. 855; and Duncan v. Record Publishing Co., 145 S.C. 196, 143 S.E. 31. "The fact that supersensiti......