From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Facts
Keeble (the plaintiff) owned property called Minott’s Meadow, which contained a pond which he had outfitted with decoys and nets for duck hunting. On three occasions, defendant Hickeringill, while on his own land, discharged firearms toward Keeble's pond in order to scare away the ducks. At trial, Keeble won a verdict of £20.

Decision
Chief Justice Holt held that an action did lie, because every person has the right to put his property to use for his own pleasure and profit. If Hickeringill had merely set up decoys on his own land near Keeble’s meadow to draw away ducks, no action could be taken, because Hickeringill would have just as much right to set up decoys on his own property as Keeble does on his. But Hickeringill actively disturbed the ducks on Keeble's land, causing damages to him.

Furthermore, Keeble had gone through the expense of setting up these decoys and nets, and to allow Hickeringill to disturb the profitable use of the land was bad for commerce. When a person hinders another’s use of his own property for profit, it is actionable. Thus, Justice Holt concluded that "in short, that which is the true reason for this action is not brought to recover damage for the loss of the fowl, but for the disturbance".