« ZurückWeiter »
Jones v. Pearce (N. P.), 122, 44,53, 142, | Morgan v. Seaward (N. P.), 170, 53, 128. 535, 542, 691, 705, 709.
- (Exch.), 187, 42, - (Ch.), 121.
44, 71, 110, 128, 270, 405, 427, 484, Jupe r. Pratt (N. P.), 144.
536, 541. (Exch.), 97, 145.
- (Ch.), 167.
Morris o. Bransom, 51, 406. Kay t. Marshall, 75, 212, 213, 214, 396,
Morton o. Barclay, 49. 401, 409.
Mower, Minter o. Kay's Patent, in re (P. C.), 568.
Murray o. Elliston, 136.
Mussary, R. O.
Neild, Sandiford o.
-0. Harford (N.P.), 295, 16, 83, Lacy, ex parte Heathcote, in re; 431.
97. Lainson 7. Tremere, 293, 294.
- (Exch.), 331, 328, Langmead, Oldham v.
16, 66, 79, 83, 97, 173, 237, 260, 267, Laycock, Clark o.
412. Legatt's (Arthur) case, 41.
(Ch.) 278, 290, 373. Lewis o. Davis, 488, 99, 188, 406, 413.
- 0. Homfray, 278, 290. Lewis c. Marling (N. P.), 490, 124, 126, -0. The Househill Company, 673. 254, 483, 484.
- v. Thompson (L. C.), 278, 50, - (K. B.), 493, 42, 126,
238. 159, 188, 190, 191, 192, 196,
- (V.C.), 275.. 483, 484, 535, 542, 705.
-, R. o. Liardet o. Johnson, 53, 40, 44.
Newall, R. o. Losh o. Hague (N. P.), 202, 145, 410.
Nickels' Patent, in re (M. R.), 650. -(Exch.), 203, 209.
- IL. C.), 656. Ch.), 200. Lovell o. Hicks, 295.
Nightingale, Arkwright o. Lowe o. Eldred, 516.
O'Brien o. Saxon, 257. Lysaght o. Walker, 516.
Oldham 0. Langmead, 291, 294.
Olive, Severn 0.
Parker, Manton o. Mackenzie, Bulnois o.
Pearce, Jones o. Makepeace c. Jackson, 126.
- Page o. Maltby, Hayne o.
Pears, Watson o. Manton o. Parker, 192, 484.
Peach, Crofts o. Marling, Lewis o.
Pechey's case, 4. Marriott, Roberts v.,
Pembley, Fisher o. Marshall, Kay o.
Perry o. Mitchell, 269, 262. Matthey's case, 6.
. Skinner, 250, 646. May, Morgan o.
Philip, Ridgeway o.
Playne, Harmar o.
Porter, Blackrey v. Minchin o. Clement, 249.
Potter, Walton o. Minter o. Mower, 138, 44, 76, 281, 396. Praed o. Duchess of Cumberland, 514, Minter o. Wells & Hart (N.P.), 126,
516. 127, 223.
Pratt, Jupe o. - (Exch.), 134, Price, Crane v. 142, 350, 686.
-, Macfarland v. -0. Williams, 135, 7.
Savory v. Mitchell 0. Reynolds, 5.
Protheroe o. Good, 212. Mitchell, Perry o.
-v. May, 414, 295. Monopolies, case of, v. Darcy, 0. Allin. Moon 0. Raphael, 267.
Quarrill's Patent, in re (P. C.), 740. Moore, Bovill o.
Ramsey, Craw v. Morgan o. May, 514.
Raphael, Moon o. Morgan's Patent, in re (P. C.), 733. R. 0. Aires, 670.
R. 0. Arkwright, 64, 51, 56, 60, 173, Sturtz o. De la Rue, 83. 245, 246, 409, 441.
Sutton, Wakeman v.
Swaine's patent, in re (P.C.), 559.
Taylor 0. Hare, 295, 292.
Taylor & Shuttleworth, ex parte, in re R. v. Mussary, 41.
Wright's patent (P. C.), 561. R. v. Neilson, 665, 486.
Taylor, Bowman v. R. v. Newall, 671.
Tennant's case, 125, 188, 190, 240, 244, R. v. Nickels, 627.
246. R. v. Walton, 626. R. v. Wheeler, 42, 114, 175, 312, 341,
Thompson v. Gibson, 272.
- , Hill 0. 373, 403, 409, 482.
- Neilson v. Reynolds, Mitchell o.
Tindal, Soames C. Richardson, Universities of Oxford and
- , Wilson v. Cambridge o.
Travell 0. Carteret, 42, 196. Ridgeway o. Philip, 417.
Tremere, Lainson o. Riviere, Forsyth o.
Trimley v. Unwin, 267. Roberts's Patent, in re (P. C.), 573. Turner c. Winter, 77, 164, 215, 243, Roberts v. Marriott, 514.
350, 482, 492, 622. Roebuck & Garbett o. Stirlings, 45, 451, 433,439,441, 444, 445,449, 450, 454.
50. Universities of Oxford and Cambridge r. - Stirlings 0.
Richardson, 48, 448, 454. Russell v. Barnsley, 472.
Unwin, Heath v. Russell o. Cowley (N. P.), 459.
-, Trimley v. (Exch.), 463, 465, 51, | Uther, Webster v. 406. - (Ch.), 457, 471.
Wakeman v. Sutton, 516. -0. Crichton, 677. Russell, ex parte, in re Whitehouse's
Walker, Carpenter v.
-, Lysagbit o. patent (P. C.), 473.
Walton 7. Bateman, 613, 268, 593, 598. Sandiford v. Neild, 311.
v. Potter, 585, 151, 351.
Watchhorn, Dudlow v.
Wathen, Coleman r.
Watson o. Pears, 154. Seaward, Morgan o.
- Baskett C. Severn v. Olive, 183.
Webster o. Uther, 128. Sharp's Patent, ex parte Wordsworth,
--, Elgie o.
Weld, Brewster o. in re (M. R.), 641. Shaw, Barker & Harris t.
Wells, ex parte, in re Westrupp & GibShuttleworth v. Cocker, 272.
bins' Patent, 554. & Taylor, ex parte, in re
- & Hart, Minter v.
Westrupp & Gibbins' Patent, ex parte Wright's patent, 561. Simister's Patent, in re (P. C), 721.
Wells, in re (P.C.), 555. Skewes, Bickford o.
Wheeler, R. 0. Skinner, Perry 0.
Whitehouse's Patent, ex parte Russell, Smethurst, Cochrane v.
in re (P. C.), 473. Smith, Carpenter v.
Wilby, Gillett v. Soames's Patent, in re (P. C.), 729.
Williams v. Brodie, 75.
--, Minter o. Soames (see Wilson) v. Tindal, 236, 238. Solicitors of Edinburgh, Mc Andrews o.
Wilson o. Tindal, 730. Southworth's Patent, ex parte Haworth,
Winter, Turner o. in re (P. C.), 486.
Wood v. Zimmer, 44, 82, 188, 190, 194. Spilsbury o. Clough, 255, 417.
Woodcroft's Patent, in re (P.C.), 740. Stafford's Patent, in re (P. C.), 563.
Wright's Patent, ex parte Shuttleworth Stephens, Edgebury 0.
and Taylor, in re (P.C.), 561. Stevenson, Hesse o.
Wright's Patent, in re (P. C.), 575. Stirlings o. Roebuck & Garbett, 50. -, Roebuck & Garbett v.
Zimmer, Wood v.
REPORTS AND NOTES OF CASES
LETTERS PATENT FOR INVENTIONS.
THE CASE OF MONOPOLIES.
DARCY v. Allin. [An. 44 El. 11 Co. R. 84: Noy 178.] This was an action for the infringement of letters patent for the sole making and selling of cards, and the declaration stated, that the queen, perceiving that divers subjects of able bodies, which might go to plough, did employ themselves in the art of making of cards, she did, by her letters patent, (13 Jun. 30 El.) grant to Ralph Bowes, that he, by himself, his factors, and assigns, as well denizens as strangers, might buy and provide beyond the seas playing cards, and cause them to be brought into England, or into her dominions, by whatsoever means, and utter, sell, or distribute the same, in gross or by retail ; and that he should have the whole trade of making and selling of cards in England, &c., and that none should have the making and selling of cards within her dominions but he, for 12 years, straitly restraining all her subjects, other than the said Ralph Bowes, his factors and assigns, from the making and selling thereof: that by other letters patent, of 11 Aug. 40 El., reciting those above recited, the same exclusive privilege was granted to the plaintiff for 21 years, to begin after the expiration of the former term of 12 years; and that plaintiff was possessed of that interest; and that the former term expired 13 Jun. 42 El.; and that plaintiff after the expiration of the said term, to wit, on the, &c., caused 4,000 gross of cards to be made in London at his charges, amounting to, &c., for the necessary use of the subjects.
That the defendant, knowing the premises, 15 May, 44 El. caused 80 gross of cards to be made, he being a subject, and no assignee or factor to the plaintiff ; and 16 May, 44 El., did sell half a gross of playing cards to, &c., for &c., which were not made in England, or brought into England, by the plaintiff or his factor, without license of the queen, or consent of the plaintiff, he being a subject, whereby the plaintiff was defrauded of the benefit which he was to enjoy by his charter, to his damage of £200.
half a grossartor to the plaintiff; and seeing a subject, and no
The defendant, except to half a gross of cards sold to, &C., pleaded not guilty; and as to that pleaded, that the city of London is an ancient city, and that, from time whereof no memory of man is to the contrary, within the same city, there hath been a fellowship or company of citizens called Haberdashers of London, and that within the same city one lawful custom hath been used, de tempore, &c., that every citizen of the said company may buy, sell, and merchandize, all things merchantable, within the realm of England ; and showeth that the defendant, at the time when, &c., and before and since, was a citizen and haberdasher of London, and that by reason thereof he did sell the said gross of cards, being things merchantable, as he lawfully
might. Judgment. To this plea the plaintiff demurred, and the case was argued
before Popham, C. J., and the court, upon the two following questions, on the two distinct grants in the letters patent; first, whether the said grant to the plaintiff, of the sole making of cards within the realm, was good, or not; secondly, whether the license or dispensation, to have the sole importation of foreign
cards, granted to the plaintiff, was available, or not, in law. All trades law. As to the first question, it was resolved, that the said grant
do to the plaintiff, of the sole making of cards within the realm, but by parlia- was utterly void ; and that for two reasons. First, that it is a
monopoly, and against the common law. Secondly, that it is against divers acts of parliament. Against the common law for four reasons. As to the first ground, 1. All trades, as well mechanical as others, which prevent idleness (the bane of the commonwealth), and exercise men and youth in labour, for the maintenance of themselves and their families, and for the increase of their substance, to serve the Queen when occasion shall require, are profitable for the commonwealth ; and therefore the grant to the plaintiff, to have the sole making of them, is against the common law, and the benefit and liberty of the subject, as was adjudged in this court in Davenant v. Hurdis; where the case was, that the company of Merchant Tailors in London, having power by charter to make ordinances for the better rule and government of the company, so that they are consonant to law and reason, made an ordinance, “that every brother of the same society who should put any cloth to be dressed by any cloth-worker, not being a brother of the same society, should put one-half of his cloths to some brother of the same society, who exercised the art of a cloth-worker, upon pain of forfeiting ten shillings, &c.; and to distrain for it, &c.," and it was adjudged that that ordinance, although it had the countenance of a charter, was against the common law, because it was against the liberty of the subject. For every subject, by the law, has freedom and liberty to put his cloth to be dressed by what cloth-worker he pleases, and cannot be restrained to
certain persons, for that in fact would be a monopoly, and therefore such ordinance by colour of a charter, or any grant by charter to such effect, would be void. As to the second ground, the sole trade of any mechanical artifice, or any other monopoly, is not only a damage and prejudice to those who exercise the same trade, but also to all other subjects, for the end of all these monopolies is for the private gain of the patentees.
And therefore there are three inseparable incidents to every Monopoly monopoly against the commonwealth; the price of the same cente commodity will be raised, for he who has the sole selling of any Price raised. commodity may and will make the price as he pleases; that after the monopoly granted the commodity is not so good and Quality of
commodity merchantable as it was before, for the patentee, having the sole inferior. trade, regards only his private benefit and not the commonwealth; that it tends to the impoverishment of divers artificers, Tends to the
impoverishing and others, who before, by the labour of their hands in their art or artificers. trade, had maintained themselves and their families, who now will of necessity be restrained to live in idleness and beggary. And the common law in this point agrees with the equity of the law of God, as appears in Deut. c. 24, v. 6, and with the civil law.
As to the third ground. The queen was deceived in her grant; Grant void if for the queen, as by the preamble appears, intended it to be for the weal public, and it will be employed for the private gain of the patentee, and for the prejudice of the weal public. Moreover, the queen meant that the abuse should be taken away, which shall never be by this patent, but rather the abuse will be increased, for the private benefit of the patentee; and therefore, as it is said in the Earl of Kent's case, this grant is void jure regio. As to the fourth ground. This grant is primæ impressionis, for no such was ever seen to pass by letters patent under the great seal before these days, and therefore it is a dangerous innovation, as well without any precedent or example as authority of law or reason. And as to what has been said that playing cards is a vanity; it is true if it is abused; but the making of them is neither a vanity nor a pleasure, but labour and pains. And it is true that none can make a park, chase, or warren, without the king's license; for that is quodam modo to appropriate those which are feræ naturæ et nullius in bonis to himself, and to restrain them of their natural liberty, which he cannot do without the king's license; but for hawking, hunting, &c., which are matters of pastime, pleasure, and recreation, there needs no license, but every man may, in his own land, use them at his pleasure, without any restraint to be made, unless by parliament. And therefore it was resolved, that the queen could not suppress the making of cards within the realm, no more than the making of dice, bowls, balls, hawks-hoods, bells, lewers, dog-couples, and other the like, which are works of labour and art, although they serve for pleasure, recreation, and pastime,