Keeble v. Hickeringill, Queen’s Bench (1707) (duck pond)

a.       This case mainly addresses “land use for profit”

b.      Facts- P placed decoy ducks in his decoy pond to attract and capture ducks. He would then sell the captured ducks for profit. D shot a gun near P’s land, not to capture the ducks, but to scare them away. P filed suit against D for interfering with the use of his property.

c.       Procedural History- Verdict was found for P. D appealed.

d.      Issue- The issue is whether action can be bought against someone who (maliciously) interferes with another’s use of land.

e.       Holding- By shooting a gun near P’s property and thus interfering with his livelihood, an action can be bought against D.

                                                              i.      If D had set up his own pond and decoys, and that interfered with P’s ability to capture ducks, D would not be liable for an action. This is because D “had as much liberty to make and use a decoy as the plaintiff”

f.       Rule- Every man who lawfully owns a property is entitled to use said property for their pleasure and profit. An action can be bought against anyone who interferes with said profit.

g.      D was not “competing” to get ducks….his activity was purely destructive

                                                              i.      What is the best for the people?

1.      By shooting the gun, D was not “taking P’s wealth”…he was “destroying wealth”

h.      Would P using the land for “pleasure” make a difference?