3cdcb0ac-6d34-4f95-a7ee-3e04c9648a06.doc 31 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. Rule 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. Facts 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.
Pages to are hidden for
"Keeble v Hickeringill - DOC"Please download to view full document