Hamlyn v. More (The Schoolmasters’ Case)

Y.B. 11 Hen. 4, fol. 47, Hil., pl. 21 (1410) (Eng.)

Two masters of a grammar school brought a writ of trespass against another master, and counted that, whereas the collation to the grammar school of Gloucester belonged from time immemorial to the prior of Llanthony near Gloucester, and the said prior had made collation to the said plaintiff to have the governance of the scholars and to teach the children and others: the defendant had set up school in the same town, as a result of which the plaintiffs—who had been accustomed to take 40d. or two shillings a quarter from each child—now took only 12d.; to their damage etc.

¶ Horton made a full defense. —Tildesley. Truly, his writ is invalid.

¶ Skrene. It is a good action on the case, and the plaintiffs have shown sufficient matter and have shown how they are damaged.

¶ Hankford. Damnum may be absque injuria. For instance, if I have a mill and my neighbour sets up another mill, so that the profit from my mill is reduced, I shall have no action against him; and yet it is damaging to me.

¶ Thirning [C.J.] agreed, and said that teaching children is a spiritual matter. And if a man retains a master in his own house to teach the children, although it would damage the common school-master of the town, I believe he shall not have an action.

¶ Skrene. The masters of St Paul’s School claim that there shall be no other schoolmasters in the whole city of London except them.

¶ Then Horton demanded judgment whether the court would take cognisance.

¶ Skrene. You have passed that [step].

¶ Then Horton demurred, that the action was not maintainable.

¶ Skrene. Since we will aver the prior’s title, as above, and that we are damaged by reason that he has drawn away our schoolboys—so that where we used to take 40d. or two shillings from each schoolboy for the quarter we now only take 12d.—we demand judgment, and pray our damages.

¶ Thirning. This court cannot take cognisance whether the prior can have such collation of schools or not, because the teaching and instruction of children is a spiritual matter. It seems to me that, since the plaintiffs have claimed the school by the prior’s collation, and have based their action on that, which is accessory to and dependent on the prior’s title, which is the principal matter, and since that is a spiritual matter, this action cannot be tried in this court.

¶ Skrene. If a market is set up to the nuisance of my market, I shall have an assize of nuisance. And in a common case, if those coming to my market are hindered or beaten, whereby I lose my tolls, I shall have a good enough action on my case. Likewise here.

¶ Hankford. It is not comparable, because in your example you have a freehold and an inheritance in the market. Here, however, the plaintiffs have no estate in the schoolmastership, save for an uncertain time. And it would be against reason for a master to be prevented from holding school wherever he pleases, unless in the case of a university which has been incorporated, or schools founded in ancient times. In the case of a mill, as I said before, if my neighbour sets up a mill, and others who used to grind at my mill go to the other mill, so that my toll is reduced, I shall not for this reason have an action. If, however, a miller prevents the water from running to my mill, or commits some nuisance of that kind, I shall have such action [against him] as the law gives.

¶ And the opinion of the court was that the writ did not lie. So it was awarded that they take nothing by their writ etc.