Keeble v. Hickeringill
11 East 574; 103 Eng. Rep. 1127 (1707)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who maliciously interferes with another's lawful trade or livelihood is liable for the damages caused by that interference. This principle holds even if the interfering act occurs on the actor's own property and does not involve direct trespass or the taking of property.
Facts:
- Keeble owned land called Minott's Meadow, where he established a decoy pond for the purpose of attracting and capturing wildfowl as a commercial enterprise.
- Keeble invested his own money and labor to prepare the pond with decoy-ducks, nets, and other equipment necessary for his trade.
- Hickeringill, knowing of Keeble's profitable venture, went to a location near the head of Keeble's pond.
- While on his own land, Hickeringill discharged a gun multiple times, not for the purpose of hunting or any other productive use, but with the intent to frighten the wildfowl and prevent them from coming to Keeble's pond.
- As a direct result of the gunfire, the wildfowl were frightened away from Keeble's decoy pond for a significant period, causing him to lose profits from his trade.
Procedural Posture:
- Keeble (plaintiff) brought an action upon the case against Hickeringill (defendant) in a trial court.
- A jury found in favor of Keeble and awarded him 20 pounds in damages.
- Following the verdict, Hickeringill made a motion in the Court of King's Bench for an arrest of judgment, arguing that the facts alleged by Keeble did not constitute a legally sufficient claim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landowner commit a legally actionable wrong by discharging a firearm on their own property with the sole and malicious intent of scaring away wildfowl from a neighbor's decoy pond, thereby interfering with the neighbor's established trade?
Opinions:
Majority - Holt, C.J.
Yes, a landowner commits a legally actionable wrong by maliciously interfering with a neighbor's trade. The court held that while Keeble did not have a property right in the wildfowl, he had a right to the lawful use of his land for his trade. Hickeringill's action was not a form of legitimate competition, such as setting up a rival decoy pond, but was a violent and malicious act intended solely to disrupt Keeble's livelihood. The court reasoned that every person has a right to pursue their trade without malicious hindrance from others. It drew an analogy to a schoolmaster whose students are frightened away by a third party; the schoolmaster would have an action for the loss of business. The lawsuit is not for the loss of the birds themselves, but for the disturbance of Keeble's business, which is a legally protected interest.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in tort law, establishing the principle of unlawful interference with trade or business relations. It crucially distinguishes between harm caused by legitimate competition (damnum absque injuria, or damage without legal injury) and harm caused by malicious, non-competitive acts intended solely to disrupt another's livelihood (injuria). This ruling establishes that property rights are not absolute and cannot be exercised with the sole intent of maliciously harming a neighbor's economic interests. The principles from this case have evolved into the modern tort of intentional interference with business relations.
Unlock the full brief for Keeble v. Hickeringill