Keeble v Hickeringill (1707) PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Brief...

Description

Keeble v Hickeringill 11 East 574 (Queen’s Bench 1707) Plaintiff: Keeble Defendant: Hickeringill Procedure: Complaint Filed, Pleading, Discovery, Trial, Verdict

RULE OF LAW: Failure to obtain possession of a ferae naturae resulting in loss of livelihood is disruption of trade not loss of property that had not been obtained as a result of failure to possess.

FACTS: Keeble kept a decoy pond on his property as to obtain ownership of wildfowl. Hickeringill intentional disturbed this process with the firing of a weapon near the decoy pond on two occasions with several shots fired each time. This caused a pattern to be established that the wildfowl have forsaken the pond.

ISSUE: Is the person who resulted in loss of obtaining ownership of wildfowl at fault for the loss of economy because of their actions?

HOLDING AND REASONING: Yes – hindering another’s abilities to use their trade for their livelihood makes them responsible for the damage incurred because of their disruption.

CONCURRENCE: N/A

DISSENT: N/A

JUDGMENT: For the Plaintiff and 20£ damages

Notes & Questions:...