Keeble v. Hickeringill Queen’s Bench, 1707. Facts: Keeble (plaintiff) owned land where he set up a decoy pond, which he used for the lawful purpose of luring wildfowl to his property. Keeble took the wildfowl as part of a profit-making venture. Hickeringhill (defendant) had a decoy pond of his own. On three separate occasions, Hickeringill, from his own property, fired off guns near Keeble’s pond for purposes of scaring away the wildfowl that had gathered there. Procedural History: Keeble sued for damages resulting from Hickeringill’s actions. The lower court found in favor of Keeble and awarded him damages (20£) for the disturbances. Hickeringhill moved the King’s Bench for arrest of judgment, arguing that Keeble never had possession of the birds. Issue: Whether a remedy exists for a property owner whose use of his property for profit is frustrated by the malicious act of another. Holding: Yes, a property owner has a right to make lawful use of her property for profit without the malicious interference of others. The lower court’s judgment is affirmed. Reasoning: A property holder making lawful use of his land is free to do so without interference from others. Where the landowner uses his property for a profit-making venture, it constitutes a trade, and interfering with a person’s livelihood subjects the interferor to an award of damages. For example, a person who slanders another’s business or trade may be held liable. Using decoy ponds to capture wildfowl is legal, and therefore Keeble was making lawful use of his property for profit. Hickeringill’s actions improperly interfered with Keeble’s lawful activities. Hickeringill would have been free to set up a competing decoy pond on his own property, thus diverting the wildfowl to his own property. This would not have been unlawful. A schoolmaster is free to set up a competing school, but not to shoot at students to scare them away from attending another school. There is no reason to require Keeble to indicate the number of wildfowl diverted from his property or prove he was in possession of the wildfowl, because the damage here is not the loss of the birds. Rather, Keeble was harmed by Hickeringhill’s disturbance. Note: ● Ratione Soli: Legal doctrine that provides that the property rights to any wild animal captured or killed on private land is automatically vested in the landowner. ○ Contrast with Free Taking.