Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 850.0

529US3

Unit: $U59

[09-26-01 12:32:42] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 765 (2000)

775

Opinion of the Court

74 L. Q. Rev. 561, 585 (1958). Starting in the 14th century,
as the royal courts began to extend jurisdiction to suits in-
volving wholly private wrongs, the common-law qui tam ac-
tion gradually fell into disuse, although it seems to have
remained technically available for several centuries. See 2
W. Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown 369 (8th ed. 1824).

At about the same time, however, Parliament began en-
acting statutes that explicitly provided for qui tam suits.
These were of two types: those that allowed injured parties
to sue in vindication of their own interests (as well as the
Crown’s), see, e. g., Statute Providing a Remedy for Him
Who Is Wrongfully Pursued in the Court of Admiralty, 2
Hen. IV, ch. 11 (1400), and—more relevant here—those that
allowed informers to obtain a portion of the penalty as a
bounty for their information, even if they had not suffered
an injury themselves, see, e. g., Statute Prohibiting the Sale
of Wares After the Close of Fair, 5 Edw. III, ch. 5 (1331); see
generally Common Informers Act, 14 & 15 Geo. VI, ch. 39,
sched. (1951) (listing informer statutes). Most, though not
all, of the informer statutes expressly gave the informer a
cause of action, typically by bill, plaint, information, or action
of debt. See, e. g., Bill for Leases of Hospitals, Colleges, and
Other Corporations, 33 Hen. VIII, ch. 27 (1541); Act to Avoid
Horse-Stealing, 31 Eliz. I, ch. 12, § 2 (1589); Act to Prevent
the Over-Charge of the People by Stewards of Court-Leets
and Court-Barons, 2 Jac. I, ch. 5 (1604).

For obvious reasons, the informer statutes were highly
subject to abuse, see M. Davies, The Enforcement of English
Apprenticeship 58–61 (1956)—particularly those relating to
obsolete offenses, see generally 3 E. Coke, Institutes of the
Laws of England 191 (4th ed. 1797) (informer prosecutions
under obsolete statutes had been used to “vex and entangle
the subject”). Thus, many of the old enactments were re-
pealed, see Act for Continuing and Reviving of Divers Stat-
utes and Repeal of Divers Others, 21 Jac. I, ch. 28, § 11