Creosote similar caustic and antiseptic properties, but noted that it was different, in that it was an acid and formed salts. Nonetheless, Reichenbach argued that creosote was also the active element, as it was in pyroligneous acid. Despite evidence to the contrary, his view held sway with most chemists, and it became commonly accepted wisdom that creosote, carbolic acid, and phenylhydrate were identical substances, with different degrees of purity. Carbolic acid was soon commonly sold under the name "creosote", and the scarcity of wood-tar creosote in some places led chemists to believe that it was the same substance as that described
Litigation before the judgment in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Litigation before the judgment in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co The Litigation before the judgment in "Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company" was a rather decorated affair, considering that a future Prime Minister served as counsel for the company. A close reading of the submissions and the decision in the Queen's Bench show that the result of the Court of Appeal was not inevitable or necessarily a decision on orthodox principles of previous case law. For the facts and full final decision, see "Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company". At first instance, on the 4th of July 1892, in