''Keeble v Hickeringill'' (1707) 103 ER 1127 is a famous English property law and tort law case about rights to wild animals.

Facts

Samuel Keeble (the plaintiff) owned property called Minott's Meadow, which contained a pond outfitted with nets and channels in a manner used to catch large numbers of commercially viable ducks. This type of pond served as a sort of "duck trap" and was known as a decoy. Tame ducks were used to lure their wild counterparts into the decoy. On three occasions,

defendant In court proceedings, a defendant is a person or object who is the party either accused of committing a crime in criminal prosecution or against whom some type of civil relief is being sought in a civil case. Terminology varies from one jurisdic ...

Edmund Hickeringill, while on his own land, discharged

firearms A firearm is any type of gun designed to be readily carried and used by an individual. The term is legally defined further in different countries (see Legal definitions). The first firearms originated in 10th-century China, when bamboo tubes c ...

toward Keeble's pond in order to scare away the ducks.

Judgment

Chief Justice Holt Sir John Holt (23 December 1642 – 5 March 1710) was an English lawyer who served as Lord Chief Justice of England from 17 April 1689 to his death. He is frequently credited with playing a major role in ending the prosecution of witches in Eng ...

sustained the action of trespass on the case, because every person has the right to put his property to use for his own pleasure and profit. If Hickeringill had built a decoy on his own land near Keeble's meadow to draw away ducks (which, in fact, he had done previous to the construction of Keeble's own decoy and may have lent some cause as to Hickeringill's harassing actions), no action could be taken, because Hickeringill would have just as much right to set up a decoy on his own property as Keeble does on his. But, Hickeringill actively disturbed the ducks on Keeble's land, thereby causing damages in that, Furthermore, Keeble had gone through the expense of setting up the decoy and nets, and to allow Hickeringill to disturb the profitable use of the land was bad for commerce. When a person hinders another's use of his own property for profit, it is actionable, even if there is no physical trespassing. Thus, Justice Holt concluded that On appeal, made by Hickeringill the verdict was re-affirmed without any change. Keeble won a verdict of

£20 The pound sign is the symbol for the pound unit of sterling – the currency of the United Kingdom and previously of Great Britain and of the Kingdom of England. The same symbol is used for other currencies called pound, such as the Gibralt ...

. In the later House of Lords case of ''

Allen v Flood ''Allen v Flood'' 898AC 1 is a leading case in English tort law and UK labour law on intentionally inflicted economic loss. Facts A trade union official told an employer his members would not work alongside the claimants. The employer was pressu ...

,'' the Lords held that ''Keeble v Hickeringill'' was just a nuisance case, and not an economic torts case.

References

External links

{{wikisource
Excerpted version of case
from a textbook by John Henry Wigmore from Google Books
Discussion of the case
by A.W. Brian Simpson, also from Google Books English tort case law 1707 in British law 1707 in England English property case law Lord Holt cases Court of King's Bench (England) cases

Facts

Judgment

See also

References

External links