The Argument, Decision, and Reports of Darcy v. Allen
![handle is hein.journals/emlj45 and id is 1271 raw text is: THE ARGUMENT, DECISION, AND REPORTS
OF DARCY v. ALLEN
Jacob . Corrg*
INTRODUCTION
In 1602, Edward Darcy, a groom of Queen Elizabeth's Privy Chamber,
brought an action on the case against a London haberdasher named Thomas
Allen. By letters patent issued in 1598 Darcy held the exclusive privilege to
manufacture, import and sell playing cards in England and its dominions, a
privilege that the Crown had first granted in 1576. Darcy alleged that Allen
had procured the manufacture of a large quantity of playing cards and that
Allen had sold them, all in violation of Darcy's grant. Allen denied the alle-
gations in large part, but he admitted that he had sold a small quantity of
playing cards and pleaded a right to do so. The case was argued at great
length in Trinity and Michaelmas terms 1602. Leading lawyers of the day
represented both parties, including the Solicitor General and the Attorney
General, both of whom argued on behalf of Darcy. The King's Bench ren-
dered judgment for Allen in Easter term 1603.
This is the familiar outline of Darcy v. Allen, which lawyers and historians
have come to know as The Case of Monopolies. The case is widely viewed as
the seminal statement of the common law policy against restraints of trade.
As with so many other cases from its era, Darcy v. Allen's fame is largely
due to the reports of Edward Coke.' This is particularly true in the case of
Darcy v. Allen because, as this Article will show, there was no judicial opin-
ion in the case. The meaning of the judgment was probably subject to consid-
erable doubt at the time the case was decided.
* Visiting Faculty Member, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology. For help-
ful comments on a prior draft of this work, I thank John Baker, Julie Bentz, Anita Bernstein, Charles Gray,
Philip Hamburger, Steven Heyman, Linda Hirshman, James Lindgren, Richard McAdams, and William Stull.
The Marshall Ewell Fund generously supported my research.
[Editor's Note: Citations to unpublished materials held by the British Library and to the unpublished
court documents have not been independently reviewed by the editors].
' 11 Co. Rep. 84b, 77 Eng. Rep. 1260 (1603). Two other reports of the case exist in print. Moore
671, 72 Eng. Rep. 830 (1603); Noy 173, 74 Eng. Rep. 1131 (1603). Coke was the only reporter to use the
name The Case of Monopolies. All other reporters referred to the case by the names of the parties.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/emlj45&div=34&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
The Argument, Decision, and Reports of Darcy v. Allen
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most