The Case of Monopolies
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1616 |
| Date | 01 January 1616 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 77 E.R. 1260
King's Bench Division
See Marsden v. Saville Street Foundry Company, 1878, 3 Ex. D. 206; Great Eastern Railway Company v. Goldsmid, 1884, 9 App. Cas. 940; R. V. County Court Judge of Halifax [1891], 1 Q. B. 263.
[84 b] the case of monopolies. Trin. 44 Eliz. [See Marsden \. Savitte Street Foundry Company, 1878, 3 Ex. D. 206; Great Eastern Railway Company v. GoMsmid, 1884, 9 App. Gas. 940; B. v. County Court Judge of Halifax [1891], 1 Q. B. 798; [1891], 2 Q, B. 263]. A grant by the Crown of the sole making of cards within the realm, is void. A dispensation or licence to have the sole importation and merchandizing of cards, without any limitation or stint, is against law, notwithstanding the 3 E. 4. which imposes a forfeiture upon their importation. S. C. [Moor. 671. Noy 173,] Com. Dig. Trade, A 1. D 4. Skin. 133. 169, &c. Carth. 270. Lucas 131. 3 lust. 181. 8 Co. 125 a. 2 Inst. 47. 3 Keb. 269. Hob. 212. Edward Darcy, Esquire, a groom of the Privy Chamber to Queen Elizabeth brought an action on the case against T. Allein, haberdasher, of London, and declared, that Queen Elizabeth, 13 Junii, anno 30 Eliz. intending that her subjects being able men to exercise husbandry, should apply themselves thereunto, and that they should not employ themselves in making playing cards, which had riot been any ancient manual occupation within this realm, and that by making such a multitude of cards, card-playing was become more frequent and especially among servants and apprentices, and poor artificers ; and to the end her subjects might apply themselves to more lawful and necessary trades; by her letters patent under the Great Seal of the same date granted to Ralph Bowes, Esq. full power, licence and authority, by himself, his servants, factors, and deputies, to provide and buy in any parts beyond the sea, all such playing cards as he thought good, and to import them into this realm, and to sell and ntter them within the same, and that he, his servants, factors, and deputies, should have and enjoy the whole trade, traffic, and merchandize, of all playing cards: and by the same letters patent further [85 a] granted, that the said Ralph Bowes, his servants, factors, and deputies, and none other should have the making of playing cards within the realm, to have and to hold for twelve years; and by the samo letters patent, the Queen charged and commanded, that no person or persons besides the said Ralph Bowes, &c. should bring any cards within the realm during those twelve years ; nor should buy, sell, or offer to be sold within the said realm, within the said term, (b) Co. Lit. 28 a. Dyer 184. pi. 63. Moor 321. Poph. 194. Latch 262. 1 Roll. Rep. 183. 11 CO. REP. SB b. CASE OF MONOPOLIES 1261 any playing cards, nor should make, or cause to be made any playing cards within the said realm, upon pain of the Queen's highest displeasure, and of such fine and punishment as offenders in the case of voluntary contempt deserve. And afterwards the said Queen, 11 Aug. anno 40 Eliz. by her letters patent reciting the former grants made to Ralph Bowes, granted the plaintiff, his executors, and administrators, and their deputies, &o. the same privileges, authorities, and other the said premises, for twenty-one years after the end of the former term, rendering to the Queen 100 marks per annum ; and farther granted to him a seal to mark the cards. And further declared, that after the end of the said term of twelve years, s. 30 Junii, an. 42 Eliz. the plaintiff caused to be made 400 grosses of cards for the necessary uses of the subjects, to be sold within this realm, and had expended in making them 50001., and that the defendant knowing of the said grant and prohibition in the plaintiff's letters patent, and other the premises, 15 Martii, anno 44 Eliz. without the Queen's licence, or the plaintiff's, &c. at Westminster caused to be made 80 grosses of playing cards, and as well those, as 100 other grosses of playing cards, none of which were made within the realm, or imported within the realm by the plaintiff, or his servants, factors, or deputies, &c. nor marked with his seal, he had imported within the realm, and them had sold and uttered to sundry persons unknown, and shewed some in certain, wherefore the plaintiff could not utter his playing cards, &c. Contra formam prcm.Uct' literar' patentium, et in contemptum dictie dominie Eeyime, (a) whereby the plaintiff was disabled to pay his farm, to the plaintiff's damages. The (b) defendant, except to one half gross pleaded not guilty, and as to that pleaded, that the City of London is an ancient city, and that within the same, from time whereof, &c. there has been a society of Haberdashers, and that within the said city there was a custom, quml qucelibet persona, de societate ilia, usus fuit et ccmsuevit emere [85 b] vendere, et lihere (c) merdiandizare oirvnem rem d omnes res merctiandizabiles infra hoc regnum Anglice. de quocunque, vel quilmscunque personis, &c. and pleaded, that he was civis et liber homo de civitate el societale ilia, and sold the said half gross of playing cards, being made within the realm, &c. aa he lawfully might; ((Z)upoti which the plaintiff demurred in law. And this case was argued at the Bar by Dodderidge, Fuller, Fleming Solicitor, and Coke Attorney-Cleneral, for the plaintiff; and by Crook, (t. Altham, and Tanfield for the defendant. And in this case two general questions were moved and argued at the Bar, arising upon the two distinct grants in the said letters patent, viz. 1. If the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meadows and Others v The Attorney General and another (Jamaica)
...against the grant of monopolies, affirmed as long ago as the time of Queen Elizabeth I ( Darcy v Allen (1603), also known as The Case of Monopolies 77 ER 1260; 11 Co Rep 84b). 13 More directly he points out that the Jamaican Act of 1890 follows closely the form and language of the English ......
-
Jamaica Public Service Company Ltd v Meadows and Others
...Supply Corporation Ltd v Westminster Electric Supply Corporation Ltd [1913] LGR 1046 and The Case of Monopolies (Darcy v Allein) (1572) 77 ER 1260. He also cited an article extracted from the internet, outlining the history of a company named Balfour Beatty Limited, in which the author opin......
-
Oakley Inc. v Animal Ltd
... ... Lord Justice Waller ... Lord Justice May and ... Lord Justice Jacob ... Case No: A3/2005/0772, 0828, and 0651 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM The ... The judge stressed that a registered design is a monopoly, and that the Executive is not able to grant monopolies unless and to the extent that it is authorised to do so by Parliament. He expressed concerns as to the extent to which the European Community had ... ...
-
Oakley Inc. v Animal Ltd and Others
...unless and to the extent that it has been authorised to do so by Parliament. This was established long ago: The Case of Monopolies (1602) 11 Co Rep 84b; The Clothworkers of Ipswich Case (1615) Godbolt 252; The Statute of Monopolies 1623 ( 21 Jac 1 c 3) 4. Failure to respect that principle w......
-
Restrain Me Not: Mitchel v Reynolds and Early 18th Century Patent Law
...does discuss some of the most important patent decisions of the early modern period such as the Case of Monopolies (1602) 11 Co Rep 84b; 77 ER 1260. 11The different types of patents in the early modern period will be discussed further below. 12MacLeod, above n 4, 150, citing data from Benne......
-
Criminalizing Cartels: An American Perspective
...Prices are just when all t he factors of product ion are being fairly compensated for their 38 Darcy v Allin (1601) 11 Coke Reports 84b, 77 E.R . 1260.39 Isaiah 5:8 (“Woe to those that add house to house/And join eld to eld/till t here is room for none but you/To dwell in the land”); Prov......
-
'Generally inconvenient': the 1624 Statute of Monopolies as political compromise.
...Conflict 1590-1914: Explorations in the History of Labour and Leisure (1981) 1. (30) The Case of Monopolies (1603) 11 Co Rep 84b, 85b; 77 ER 1260, 1262-3 (commonly known as 'Darcy v Allen'). It should be noted that there is no record of the judgments in the ease; the reports only deal with ......