Friday, November 11, 2011

Keeble v. Hickeringill case brief

Keeble v. Hickeringill 

  • P lawfully possessed a decoy pond, where waterfowl came and went.
  • P used decoy ducks, nets, etc. for decoying and taking of waterfowl which was his enjoyment.
  • D knew of this, and attempted to take away P's livelihood and drive away the ducks. 
  • D went to the pond, discharged six guns, and another gun later, frightening the waterfowl.
-Did D interfere with P's use of land for enjoyment and profits?

-Yes, liable for damages.

-Making or using a decoy is lawful.
-Every man that has a property may employ it for his pleasure or profit.
-When a man uses his skill for profit and another hinders that man in trade/profit, that other is liable.
-If a man, however, causes damages by being engaged in the same trade/employment, no action would lie, because the D would have the same liberty to make a decoy as the P.

-Example: A man takes horses to market, a stranger intercepts and obstructs, action would lie b/c there are damages.
-The people who use their skill and industry to furnish the markets should reap their benefit and have their action.

There was no damages for the ducks, nobody owned the ducks.
You have a general right to use the land, but not a general right to use the land for successful profit.

Class: Property
Subject: profits, malicious trespass, interference

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Evolution of Legal Marketing: From Billboards to Digital Leads Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...