GODIN ever? In fact, though this is, in sound, a double insurance, yet, in reality, it is only two insurances. A double insurance ASS. COMPANY. is, where a full value of interest is insured on different policies, by the same man. That is not the case here. LONDON And therefore the postea must be delivered to the plaintiff (c). (c) This is considered a leading case on the subject of double assurance. Mr. Justice Park, in his work on Insurances, lays it down, "that where a man has made a double insurance, he may recover his loss against which of the underwriters he pleases, but he can recover for no more than the amount of his loss-he shall recover but one satisfaction, and he may fix upon which of the underwriters he will for the payment of his loss; but it is a principle of natural justice that the several insurers should all of them contribute in their several proportions, to satisfy that loss, against which they have all insured;" p. 423, (ed. 1817). See Newby v. Reed, post, 416. A double insurance is not to be confounded with a re-assurance, which is made illegal by 19 Geo. 2, c. 37, s. 4, except in certain cases there specified. See Park's Ins. c. xv. p. 418. MICH. TERM,-32 GEO. II. 1758.-K. B. University of Cambridge is entrusted with a concurrent power of printing acts of Parliament and their abridg ments, together with the King's printer. *106 ] A. D. 1547. 1553. 1558. 1567. 1589. BASKET v. The University of Cambridge. S. C. 2 Burr. 661. 2 Ld. Kenyon, 397. THIS 22d April, 1 Edw. 6, A. D. 1547, The King, by letters patent, granted to Richard Grafton the office of printer of all statutes, books, acts and other volumes, by the King, his heirs and successors, then published or to be published, in the English tongue, the Latin grammar excepted, with a fee of * 12d. and an annuity of 47. sterling, to hold and receive the same, from the death of Thomas Bartlet, King Henry the Eighth's printer, for life of said Richard Grafton, and prohibited all his subjects to print any book or work of the King's, in the English tongue. 29 December, 1 Mar. A. D. 1553, The Queen, on surrender of Grafton, granted the same office to John Cawood for life, with all profits, &c. 24 Mar. 1 Eliz. A. D. 1558, The Queen granted said office to Richard Jugge and John Cawood for their lives, and the life of the survivor, if it should so long pleasure her, with an express mention of service books in this patent. 27 September, 19 Eliz., The Queen granted said office (including also bibles and testaments, as well as service books) to Christopher Barker for life. 18 August, 31 Eliz., The Queen granted said office (including also abridgments of statutes) to Robert, son of Christopher Barker and his executors, &c. immediately after the decease of Christopher, for the life of said Robert Barker; or, if he died in the lifetime of Christopher, then for four years after the death BASKET V. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY. A. D. 1603. 1616. 1627. 1635. 1675. 1713. of Christopher. 10 May, 1 Jac. 1, The King granted said office to Christopher, son of Robert Barker, his executors, &c. immediately after the death of said Robert, for life of said Christopher; or if he died in the lifetime of Robert, then for four years after the death of said Robert. 11 February, 14 Jac. 1, The King, reciting death of said Christopher_the father, granted said office to Robert son of said Robert Barker, his executors, &c. immediately after the death of Robert Barker the father and Christopher his son, for thirty years. 20 July, 3 Car. 1, The King granted to Bonham Norton and John Bill, assignees of said Robert, Christopher and Robert Barker, the said office, for the interests then subsisting, with [ *107 ] more large and ample words of solely printing said books, in which are particularly included statutes, and abridgments of statutes. 26 September, 11 Car. 1, The King granted the said office in remainder to Charles and Matthew Barker, their executors, &c. for the term of thirty years after the expiration of the several terms then subsisting. 24 December, 27 Car. 2, The King, reciting that the estates and interests of Robert Barker the father and Christopher the son, were determined; granted said office in remainder to Thomas Newcombe, and Henry Hills, their executors, &c. for thirty years after the expiration of the terms then subsisting. 13 October, 12 Ann., The Queen granted said office in remainder to Benjamin Tooke and John Barber, &c. for thirty years, from the expiration of the former patent; which new grant took effect 10th January, 1739, and is now by several mesne assignments vested in the plaintiffs, who have been sworn into the office of King's printers. The plaintiffs and their predecessors have, by virtue of said letters patent, printed all acts of Parliament, and abridgments thereof, and Bibles, Testaments, &c. therein mentioned, and claim the sole right of printing all acts and abridgments thereof, exclusive of all other persons.-20 July, 26 Hen. 8, The King granted to the Chancellor, &c. of Cambridge, licence to assign three printers; who might lawfully there print and put to sale all manner of books approved by the Chancellor (or his Vice Chancellor) and three doctors.-Stat. 13 Eliz. c. 29, confirms said letters patent.-6 February, 3 Car. 1, The King, reciting the charter of the Company of Stationers, and his own printers, and a decree in the Star-Chamber, 23 June, 28 Eliz. confirming the exclusive privileges thereby granted, which decree [ *108 ] was by proclamation, 25 September, 21 Jac. 1, commanded to be strictly observed, and also, that disputes had arisen, whether the said prohibitions extended to the printers of the University; his Majesty, for the encouragement of learning, and to end all controversies, ratified and confirmed the privilege of the charter 26 Hen. 8, and declared, it should be lawful for the University printers, with the approbation aforesaid, to print all books contained in the charters before recited, or any others granted to any person whatsoever, and to sell the same, without incurring any penalty or forfeiture; any thing to the con 1534. 1571. · 1627. [ BASKET V. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY. trary thereof notwithstanding. The defendants insist, that the plaintiffs have not the sole right of printing statutes, abridgments of statutes, Bibles and Common Prayer books, exclusive of the said University; who have a right, under the said letters patent, to print the same with the approbation aforesaid. The University printers have, from time to time, printed Bibles and Liturgies, and all such other books, as had been allowed and approved of in manner aforesaid. They have constantly printed the Acts of Uniformity, and vended them with the Books of Common Prayer; but it doth not appear, that they have printed any statutes or abridgments of statutes, except said Acts of Uniformity, till the printing of the book in question in this cause. About 1 July, 1740, the University, under seal, appointed Joseph Bentham, a person duly qualified, to be one of the said University printers. 19 March, 1741, the Chancellor and three doctors, in due form, allowed and approved a book entitled, "An exact Abridgment of all the Acts of Parliament "relating to excise on beer, ale, brandy, vinegar or other liquors, with some few notes and references," to be printed *109] by said Bentham, who printed *the same accordingly, and the same have been since vended and sold by him and Charles. Bathurst in London. The questions upon this cause are, 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the sole right of printing acts of Parliament, and abridgments of acts of Parliament, exclusive of all other persons, during the term granted by the letters patent dated 13th October, 12 Anne? 2. Whether the defendants, the Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge, by virtue of the grants and act of Parliament insisted on by the said defendants or any of them, have the right or privilege of printing acts of Parliament or abridgments of acts of Parliament? Mr. Comyns, for the plaintiff, argued, that it would be admitted, that the Crown by prerogative has the sole right of printing acts of Parliament; the question being, whether the plaintiff has a grant of that right in exclusion of all others, or whether the University has a concurrent right with the plaintiff'; for as to all others, his right is clearly exclusive. The first consideration is, whether the several letters patent, granted to the plaintiff and the University, are grants of the same thing. If so, then 2dly, whether they can consistently stand together. The office of King's printer is very antient, having subsisted ever since the introduction of printing into England. The patents stated deduce it regularly down from 1 Edw. 6, A. D. 1547; and during all that period, this officer alone has printed all acts of Parliament, and abridgments thereof, till the University printed the book in question; which, however it might be of advantage to the printer, was of none to the learned body. Before printing was introduced, temp. Hen. 6, the usage was [ *110] to transcribe all the acts at the end of every sessions, and *send them to the sheriff, with a writ commanding him, to proclaim BASKET v. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY. them in his county court, where the transcripts were kept, for the public to resort to; 4 Inst. 26 (a). And this writ continued till the time of Hen. 8, which shews that the art made but a slow progress. But from the first printing of the acts, it appears, they were printed by the King's printer; for though we have no patent till Grafton's, 1 Ed. 6, yet that refers to an appointment of Thomas Bartlett under Hen. 8; and though we cannot find his patent, we have found the grant of the annuity of 4l. per ann. 21 H. 8, which was five years before the patent to the University. The patents from the time of Car. 1, have the words solely to print, which might be inserted to prevent doubt, but were not necessary; because the sole right of printing statutes belongs to the office of King's printer, an office which the law takes notice of, and gives credit to: and therefore, 16th July, 1735, between Edwards and Vasey, it was held by Lord Hardwicke, C. J. at Nisi Prius, that an act of Parliament, 13 Car. 2, not in the statute book, might be given in evidence, if printed by the King's printer. The Legislature and public are concerned to see the statutes accurately printed. Before the time of printing, the House of Commons (according to Lord Coke) used to depute some of the members, to examine the transcripts. Afterwards, the King's printer was substituted in their room, who is a person known and answerable to the public: but if it was left to the care of many persons, there is danger of incorrectness, and no one answerable. There is a difference between acts of Parliament, which are the King's property, and to which he is a party, and the works of individuals. If therefore the King has a right to appoint a person to print them, which he undoubtedly has, and has created such an officer, the right of such officer must be exclusive, he having the King's first grant. For the King can't grant the same office, at the same time, to different persons, nor the office to one and the profits to another. *Henry 8 could not intend to give the University a power of [ *111 ] printing acts of Parliament; because acts of Parliament are of a nature universally binding, and cannot be the object of approbation or disapprobation, by the Vice-Chancellor and three doctors. And though the patent says, all manner of books, yet acts of Parliament do not fall under that description: "A book is a writing composed on some point of knowledge, by a person intelligent therein (or by some man of wit or learning) for the instruction or amusement of the reader:" Chambers's dictionary, voc. Book (b). Acts of Parliament are more properly considered as records, prohibitions, injunctions, &c. Thus, by statute 13 & 14 Car. 2(c), No person shall print books or pamphlets, without entering them at Stationers'-hall. But this extends not to acts of Parliament, but books of science; for they are not to meddle with acts of Parliament or books of state (which are expressly excepted) nor to any book, to which the King's patentee (a) See Preface to Ruffhead's Statutes, xii. xvii.; Hale's Hist. Com. Law, 13, (Runnington's ed.); 2 Inst. 526, 644, 670; 1 Ld. Raym. 501. (b) Post, 121, n. (q). (c) C. 33, s. 3: Ruffhead's St. vol. ix. Append. p. 190. BASKET v. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY. * has the sole right. Hills and University of Oxon., 1 Vern. 275. The preamble also of the statute 13 Eliz. shews what books were allowed to the University-" for the advancement of good and godly literature." The patent of Car. 1, gave no new privilege, but only confirmed the old. It gave not such a power as is now contended for, of printing acts of Parliament, because it has not specified them, which all the co-temporary patents of the printers have; and this power cannot arise by implication. This consideration, joined to that of requiring the academical approbation, clearly proves the King's intention. Where the Crown has power to grant many things, and grants some by express words, the Court will not extend the grant to others, which are not mentioned. Davis, 55; by a grant of the river Thames to the city of London, the soil under it did not pass; and therefore a new grant of the soil was obtained, by which [112] the city enjoys the buildings on London bridge. But if the patent of Car. 1, had granted this privilege to the University in express terms, it would have been void, the King having, but the July before, granted the same powers solely to another. He was therefore deceived in his second grant; in which case, the first patentee may bring a scire facias to reverse it; Dyer 197, pl. 45: Bro. tit. Sci. fa. pl. 176; Cro. Car. 197; 1 Mod. 256; Skynn. 233. There is no difference between acts at large, and abridgments. Both are granted to the King's printer, but neither to the University. The last argument arises from usage, which is the best interpreter of such grants. The King's printers have solely exercised this right, for two hundred years, without interruption from the University, or claim of a concurrent right. If such a power was given them by patent, 3 Car. 1, they never have exerted it for one hundred and twenty years. In Seymour's Case, 1 Mod. 256, the Court said, "great regard was to be paid to usage." We have been in uninterrupted enjoyment of this privilege for two centuries, under the letters patent of Hen. 8, Edw. 6, Mar., Eliz., Jac. 1, Car. 1, Car. 2, and Ann. Therefore, we hope, it shall not now be taken from us. Yorke, Solicitor-General, for the defendants, argued,—That though there are two questions stated for the opinion of the Court, occasioned by the different pretensions of the parties, this would not restrain the Court or counsel, from considering them as a single question, "Whether the plaintiff has an exclusive right of printing acts, and abridgments of acts of parliament." This is a question of great moment to the University, and to the public. To the former, as it affects a right granted to them, by the bounty of former princes: To the latter, as the public is interested, in preventing of such monopo[ *113 ] lies. Both parties admit the prerogative of the Crown to grant such patents; they both found their claims on it (d). And it will be necessary to open the grounds of this prerogative, in the present case, to make the subsequent argument the more intel (d) See post, 304, Tonson v. Collins. |