Keeble v Hickeringill - DOC by aiowmnyv




Keeble v. Hickeringill, Queen’s Bench, 1707 Issue Reasoning
If ∆ used the same decoying/employment techniques, the no action would lie – because he has as much liberty to do that. Public Policy reason: the people who are so instrucmental by their skill and industry so to furnish the markets should reap the benefit.

A landowner may use his land for pleasure or profit. Anyone who hinders him in this is liable. Hindrance, through competition is OK. When a person hinders another’s use of his own property for profit, it is actionable.

On three occasions, the ∆ fired guns near the Keeble’s pond which he had outfitted for duck catching, he fired the guns in order to frighten the ducks away and cause Keeble economic damage.

Theory: Malice interference with trade.

Dissent Held Procedure P argues D argues

Keeble brought an action for disturhance.

Ratione soli: An owner of land has possession.

To top