Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  















Commercial - From: 1200 To: 1799

This page lists 5 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.


 
 The Case of Monopolies; Darcy v Allein; 1572 - [1572] EngR 398; (1572-1616) 11 Co Rep 84; (1572) 77 ER 1260; (1602) Noy 173; (1602) Moore KB 671; (1602) 1 Web Pat Cas 1; (1602) 74 ER 1131
 
The Case of The Tailors and Co of Ipswich [1572] EngR 418; (1572-1616) 11 Co Rep 53; (1572) 77 ER 1218
1572


Commercial
Resolved, 1. At common law tio man could be prohibited from working at any lawful trade. 3. The Corporation of the Tailors of Ipswich cannot by any ordinance make by them prohibit any one from exercising his trade, till he has presented himself before them, or till they allow him to be a workman, 3. The Act 5 ELiz. 4. Forbids not the private exercise of a trade in the house of any for the use uf the family. 4. The stat. 19 H. 7. 7. leaves the ordinances of corporations allowed etc According to that Act, to be affirmed as good or clisattirmecl as unlawful, by the law ; but exempte the corporation from the penalty of 40l. for puttiug in use any unlawful ordinances, which are allowed and approved as the statute speaks.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Ipswich Clothworkers' Case; Ipswich Taylors v Sherring (1614) Godb 252
1614


Commercial, Intellectual Property
The king's power to create corporations and to order trade did not include a power to make a monopoly, for that is to take away free trade which is the birthright of every subject. A trader creating a new invention could be granted a charter by the king allowing him sole use of it for a set period of time, but when that patent expired, it could not be renewed. A copporation could not be the judge of whether its patent had been breached, for that would make it judge and jury in its own cause, and the King could not grant unto another the power to do a thing which was against the law.
1 Citers



 
 Mitchel v Reynolds; 1711 - [1711] EngR 38; (1711) 1 P Wms 181; (1711) 24 ER 347
 
The Corporation of Butchers in Edinburgh v The Magistrates of Edinburgh, and Corporation of Candle-Makers There [1715] UKHL Robertson - 124; (1715) Robertson 124
29 Jun 1715
HL

Scotland, Commercial
Burgh Royal - The Court of Session having found that the butchers of Edinburgh should be restrained from rinding tallow for sale, and that the magistrates could oblige them to sell their tallow at a certain price to the candle makers, which was in terms of a bye-law of the magistrates, ratified by a private act of parliament the judgment is reversed. This act was not sufficient to restrain the butchers from melting or rinding their tallow.
[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.