## Facts

- Tripp held an exclusive ferry franchise to carry passengers between Kingston and Barton.
- Barton and Barrow were separate coastal landing points; Barrow was about two miles south of Barton.
- Frank operated a ferry service from Kingston to Hull and then to Barrow, not to Barton.
- Tripp sued, alleging Frank’s service diverted traffic and infringed Tripp’s exclusive Kingston–Barton ferry right.
- A jury returned a verdict for Tripp with nominal damages of one shilling.
- Frank sought review in the King’s Bench, contesting whether the facts established any actionable infringement.

## Issues

1. Whether an exclusive ferry right “from A to B” is infringed by a non-franchised operator carrying passengers “from A to C,” where C is near B.
2. Whether liability depends on whether the competing route is a fraudulent pretext to avoid the franchised ferry rather than a bona fide service to a distinct terminus.

## Decision

- The King’s Bench held that Frank’s Kingston-to-Barrow operation did not infringe Tripp’s exclusive Kingston-to-Barton ferry right.
- The court recognized a limitation: competition to a nearby point is permissible so long as the alternative service is not conducted fraudulently as a mere pretense to evade the franchised route.
- On the record as treated by the court, no fraud or sham evasion was found; Barrow was treated as a distinct destination from Barton.

## Legal Principles

- An exclusive ferry (or comparable service) franchise is construed narrowly and is confined to its stated termini and route.
- A franchise from A to B does not, by itself, prohibit independent transport from A to a different point C merely because C is close to B.
- A competing service may be actionable if it is a sham designed to avoid the franchised service while effectively operating the same route in substance.
- Monopoly-like grants are interpreted strictly against the grantee; exclusivity is coextensive with the specific public-service obligation undertaken.

## Conclusion

The court limited the scope of an exclusive ferry franchise to the precise route granted and allowed nearby alternative service to a different landing point unless the competing route functioned as a fraudulent device to evade the franchise.


Tripp v. Frank, 100 Eng. Rep. 1234 (K.B. 1792)