Feather v The Queen
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 February 1865 |
| Date | 03 February 1865 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 122 E.R. 1191
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 35 L. J. Q. B. 200; 12 L. T. 144. Applied, Thomas v. R., 1874, L. R. 10 Q. B. 43. Limited, Dixon v. London Small Arms Company, 1876, 46 L. J. Q. B. 217. Approved, Windsor and Annapolis Railway v. R., 1886, 11 App. Cas. 607. Referred to, Income Tax Commissioners v. Pemsel, [1891] A. C. 546. Goldsmiths' Company v. Wyatt, [1907] 1 K. B. 107.
fbathek, Suppliant, against the queen. Friday, February 3rd, 1865.-Letters patent for invention. Defence of the country. Petition of right. Action.-ò 1. Letters patent, in the usual form, for an invention, whereby, on the prayer of the patentee, the Crown of its " special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion," grants to him " special licence, full power, sole privilege and authority to " " make, use, exercise and vend " the invention, and " enjoy the whole profit, benefit, commodity and advantage from time to time earning, growing, accruing, and arising by reason of the said invention," and prohibits " all and every person and persons, bodies politic and corporate, and all other our subjects whatsoever, of what estate, quality, degree, name or condition soever," directly or indirectly, from making, using or practising the same " without the consent, licence or agreement" of the patentee, with the condition that the patentee should supply articles of the invention for the use of the Crown, at and upon auch reasonable prices and terms as should be settled by the officers of the Crown requiring them ; and that the letters patent should be "taken, construed and adjudged in the most favourable and beneficial sense for the best advantage of" the patentee, do not preclude the Grown from the use of the invention protected by the patent, even without the assent of or compensation made to the patentee.-2. Supposing the law were otherwise, the remedy of the patentee would not be by petition of right, but by action against the officer of the Crown using the invention protected by the patent. [S. C. 35 L. J. Q. B. 200; 12 L. T. 114. Applied, Thomas v. R, 1874, L. R. 10 Q. B. 43. Limited, Dixon v. London Small Arms Company, 1876, 1 App. Cas. 632. Discussed, Boden v. London Small Arms Company, 1876, 46 L. J. Q. B. 217. Approved, Windsor and Annapolis Railway v. R., 1886, 11 App. Cas. 607. Referred to, Income Tax Commissioners v. Pemsel, [1891] A. C. 546. Goldsmiths' Company v. Wyatt, [1907] 1 K. B. 107.] Petition of right, alleging that the suppliant was the first and true inventor of a certain new manufacture, namely of " Improvements in the construction [258] of ships, and in rendering ships and boats impervious to shot"; that by letters patent of the 1192 FBATHER V. THE QUEEN 6 B. & S. 259. 26th November, 1852, the sole privilege and authority were granted to him to make, use, exercise and vend his aaid invention within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and; Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, for a terra of fourteen years &c.; that a specification had been duly filed, and afterwards and after stat. 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 83, by a disclaimer and memorandum of alteration of title, duly filed and enrolled, the title of the invention was altered to "Improvements in the construction of ships or vessels;" that the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom, in the exercise of their office and on behalf ol the! Crown, infringed the patent right, that is to say, in the construction and use of a ship for the service of the Crown called The "Enterprise," to the damage of the suppliant of 10,0001. The Crown, after setting out the patent, specification, and disclaimer and memorandum of alteration, demurred to the petitioti of right, and pleaded some pleas which it is unnecessary to notice. The patent was as follows. The portion in brackets was disclaimed. Victoria, by the grace of God, &c. To all to whom these presents shall come greeting: whereas Robert Barnard Feather, of Liverpool, merchant, hath by his petition humbly represented unto us that he is in possession of an invention for improvements in the construction of ships [and in rendering ships and boats impervious to shot], which the petitioner believes will be of great public utility; that he is the first and true inventor thereof, and that the same is not in use by any other person or persons to the best of his knowledge and belief. The petitioner [259] therefore most humbly prayed that we would be graciously pleased to grant unto him, his executors, administrators and assigns, our Royal Letters Patent for the solo use, benefit and advantage of his said invention within our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, for the term of fourteen years, pursuant to the statute in that case made and provided. And we, being willing to give encouragement to all arts and inventions which may be for the public good, are graciously pleased to condescend to the petitioner's request. Know ye therefore that we of our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, have given and granted, and by these presents for us, our heirs, and successors, do give and grant unto the said Robert Barnard Feather, his executors, administrators and assigns, our special license, full power, sole privilege and authority that he the said Robert Barnard Feather, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and every of them, by himself arid themselves, or by bis and their deputy or deputies, servants or agents, or such others as the aaid Robert Barnard Feather, bis executors, administrators or assigns, shall at any time agree with, and no others, from time to time and at all times hereinafter during the term of years herein expressed, shall and lawfully may make, use, exercise and vend his said invention within our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the (JEanoel Islands and the Isle of Man, in such manner as to him the said Robert Barnard Feather, his executors, administrators and assigns, or any of them, shall in his or their discretion seem meet, and that he the said Robert Barnard Feather, his executors, administrators and assigns, shall and lawfully may have and enjoy the whole profit, benefit, commodity and advantage from time [260] to time coming, growing, accruing and arising, by reason of the said invention, for and during the term of years herein mentioned : to have, hold, exercise and enjoy the said licenses, powers, privileges and advantages hereinbefore granted or mentioned to be granted unto the said Robert Barnard Feather, his executors, administrators and assigns, for and during and unto the full end and term of fourteen years from the day of the date of these presents next and immediately ensuing, according to the statute in such case made and provided. And to the end that he the said Robert Barnard Feather, bis executors, administrators and assigns, and every of them, may have and enjoy the full benefit and the sole use and exercise of the said invention according to our gracious intention hereinbefore declared, we do by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, require and strictly command all and every person and persons, bodies politic and corporate, and all other our subjects whatsoever, of what estate, quality, degree, name or condition soever they be, within our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, that neither they nor any of them, at any time during the continuance of the said term of fourteen years hereby granted, either directly or indirectly dp make, use or put in practice the said invention or any part of the same so attained unto by the said Robert Barnarff Feather 6 a* 3. MI. FEATHER V. THB QUEEN 1193 as aforesaid, nor in any wise counterfeit, imitate, or resemble the same, nor shall unite or eause to be made any addition thereunto or subtraction from the same whereby to pretend himself or themselves the inventor or inventors, devisor or devisors thereof, without the consent, licence or agreemeat of the said Robert Barnard Feather, his executors, administra-[261]-tors or assigns, in writing, under his or their hands and seals, first had and obtained in that behalf, upon such pains and penalties as can or may be justly inflicted on such offenders for their contempt of this our Royal command, and further, to be answerable to the said Eobert Barnard Feather, his executors, administrators, and assigns, according to law, for his and their damages thereby occasioned. And moreover we do by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, will and command all and singular the justices of the peace, mayors, sheriffs, bailiffs, constables, head-boroughs, and all other officers and ministers whatsoever of us, our heirs, and successors, for the time being, that they or any of them do not nor shall afc any time during the said term hereby granted, in any wise molest, trouble or hinder the said Robert Barnard Feather, his executors, administrators or assigns, or any of them, or his or their deputies servants or agents, in or about the due or lawful use or exercise of the aforesaid invention or anything relating thereto. Provided always, and these our letters patent are and shall be upon this condition, that if at any time during the said term hereby granted it shall be made to appear to us, our heirs or successors, or any six or more of our or their privy council, that this our grant is contrary to law or prejudicial or inconvenient to our subjects in general, or that the said invention is not a new invention as to the public use and exercise thereof within our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, or that the said Kobert Barnard Feather is not the first and true inventor thereof within this realm as aforesaid, these our letters patent shall forthwith cease, determine and be utterly void to all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The County Council of Kildare v The King
......The Queen (1) ; Windsor & Annapolis Railway Co. v. The Queen (2) ; Rustomjee v. The Queen (3) ; Feather v. The Queen (4) ; The King v. The Lords ......
-
Wheeler v Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland
...... Cowley v. Newmarket Local BoardELR [1892] A. C. 345. Duncan v. FindlaterUNK 6 C. & F. 894. Feather v. ReginaENR 6 B. & S. at p. 296. Feather v. The QueenENR 6 B. & S. at p. 296. Galsworthy's CaseELR [1892] 1 Q. B. ...GibbsELR L. R. 1 H. L. 93. The Mersey Docks v. GibbsELR L. R. 1 H. L. 93, at p. 110. The Queen v. The Lords of the TreasuryELR L. R. 7 Q. B. 387. Trinity HouseELR 17 Q. B. D. 795. Westropp v. Commissioners of ......
-
Pfizer Corporation v Ministry of Health
...to inventors was hardly a model of good draftsmanship, and the decisions in two cases gave rise to difficulties and criticisms. In Feather v. Reg (1865) 6 B. & S.257 it was held that the Crown had retained full right to make use exercise and vend the invention for which a patent had been g......
-
M v Home Office
....../1158 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (MR. JUSTICE SIMON BROWN) Royal Courts of Justice (Transcript of the Shorthand Notes of the Association of ......
-
COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (August 28 – September 1)
...2009 SCC 9, Beckman v. Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, 2010 SCC 53, M.(K.) v. M.(H.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6, Feather v. The Queen (1865), 122 E.R. 1191 (K.B.), Matthews v. Ministry of Defence, [2003] UKHL 4, [2003] 1 A.C. 1163, M. v. Home Office, [1993] UKHL 5, [1994] 1 A.C. 377, Dyson v. ......
-
Of Kings and Officers — The Judicial Development of Public Law
...Law Review 476. 151 Law Reform Commission (NSW), Proceedings By and Against the Crown (LRC 24; 1976) 13. See, eg, Feather v The Queen (1865) 122 ER 1191, 1205; Lordon, above n 56, 327 ff; Fairgrieve, above n 134, 10. 152 (1843) 1 Ph 305; 41 ER 648. 153 The rule is now well entrenched. In Ma......
-
STATUTE AND THEORIES OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY.
...Tort of Australian Governments' (2002) 10(1) Tort Law Review 14, 15-16. (98) Ibid 16, citing Feather v The Queen (1865) 6 B & S 257; 122 ER 1191, 1204-5 (Cockburn CJ for the Court) (99) Feather (n 98). 'For to authorize a wrong to be done is to do a wrong; inasmuch as the wrongful act, ......