December 4, 2019

Keeble v. Hickeringill | Case Brief - 11 East 574, 103 Eng. Rep. 1127(1707), 11 Mod. 74, 130 (as Keble v. Hickringill), 3 Salk. 9 (as Keeble v. Hickeringhall) (1707) - Queen's Bench


Facts: Plaintiff owned a piece of land which had a duck pond on it. The plaintiff would trap the ducks as his trade. The defendant discharged 6 guns on November 8th which scared away the ducks. The defendant repeated this action again on November 11th and 12th.

Procedural History: Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.

Issue: Are ducks residing in a pond property of the plaintiff?

Holding: Yes

Rationale: The plaintiff used the ducks as his trade. The defendant is liable because his action hindered the trade of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had used the property to lure ducks there.

Disposition: Action brought to recover for the disturbance, not for the loss of the ducks.

Interesting Dicta: "He that hinders another in his trade or livelihood is liable to an action for so hindering him..."