## Facts

- The plaintiff was the master (or operator) of a grammar school in Gloucester and claimed to be entitled to keep that school by the king’s grant or by lawful authority.
- The defendant set up another grammar school in the same town, near the plaintiff’s school, and began teaching there.
- The plaintiff alleged that, because of the defendant’s new school, many scholars stopped attending the plaintiff’s school and went to the defendant instead.
- The plaintiff claimed financial loss from the reduction in scholars and sought damages in an action on the case, treating the defendant’s conduct as a wrongful disturbance of the plaintiff’s school.
- The defendant denied that teaching school was wrongful and argued that the plaintiff had shown only loss, not any violation of a legal right.

## Issues

1. Whether an action on the case lies for economic loss where a defendant lawfully opens a competing school and attracts the plaintiff’s scholars.
2. Whether the plaintiff’s allegation of a right to keep a school (by grant or authority) stated an exclusive franchise sufficient to bar other schools and support damages.

## Decision

- Judgment was for the defendant.
- The court treated the defendant’s act of teaching and keeping a school as lawful in itself and not a tort merely because it drew scholars away from the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff’s allegation showed loss, but not a legally recognized injury, because the pleading did not establish that the plaintiff held an exclusive right that the defendant invaded.
- The court indicated that if the plaintiff truly claimed an exclusive franchise, the claim had to be clearly shown and pursued through the proper form of proceeding for usurpation or wrongful exercise of a franchise, rather than by converting ordinary competition into an action for damages.

## Legal Principles

- Loss alone is not enough: damage without a violation of a legal right (damnum absque injuria) is not actionable.
- Lawful competition—here, operating a school and attracting pupils—is not a wrong unless accompanied by an unlawful element (such as force, fraud, or infringement of a protected right).
- An exclusive franchise must be clearly established; a general claim of authority to keep a school does not automatically prevent others from teaching.
- Where the complaint is truly about the existence or exclusivity of a franchise, the law looks to franchise-based procedures and pleading, not a damages action that assumes exclusivity without showing it.

## Conclusion

Y.B. Hil. 11 Hen. IV, fol. 47, pl. 21 (C.P. 1410) (often called the Schoolmaster’s Case) holds that a plaintiff cannot recover damages merely because a competitor lawfully opens a nearby school and attracts students; without a clearly pleaded exclusive right (or other legal wrong), the plaintiff shows only nonactionable loss.
