## Facts

- Samuel Keeble lawfully possessed a close of land (“Minott’s Meadow”) containing an artificial decoy pond designed to attract and capture wildfowl for profit.
- Keeble invested in decoy ducks, nets, and other devices to operate the decoy pond and earn income from taking and selling wildfowl.
- Edmund Hickeringill, a neighboring landowner, intentionally sought to harm Keeble’s decoy operation and deprive him of profit.
- On multiple days, Hickeringill discharged guns near the decoy pond, creating noise and smoke that frightened away wildfowl present at, or returning to, the pond.
- Keeble sued in an action on the case for malicious disturbance of his profitable use of land.
- A jury found for Keeble and awarded £20 in damages; Hickeringill challenged the judgment, arguing Keeble had no property interest in the wildfowl.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff may recover in an action on the case when a defendant, acting maliciously and without trespass, scares wildfowl away from the plaintiff’s decoy pond, thereby impairing the plaintiff’s profitable use of land.
2. Whether the absence of actual possession or title to the specific wild animals defeats liability for intentional interference with a decoy-based enterprise.

## Decision

- The court sustained the verdict for Keeble and upheld the damages award.
- An action on the case lies for a violent or malicious act that intentionally interferes with another’s lawful occupation or profitable use of land.
- The claim was treated as seeking damages for disturbance of the decoy operation and resulting loss, not as a suit to vindicate ownership of the frightened wildfowl.
- The court distinguished actionable malicious interference from nonactionable competitive conduct (e.g., building and operating a competing decoy on one’s own land).

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is liable for intentional, malicious interference that disrupts another’s lawful and profitable use of land and causes economic loss, even without physical entry.
- Lawful competition that merely diverts business or opportunity by operating a similar enterprise is not tortious absent independently wrongful conduct.
- In disputes involving wild animals, liability may rest on interference with the plaintiff’s land-based enterprise and expectancy created by lawful capture methods, rather than on established title to particular animals before capture.

## Conclusion

The court held that deliberately frightening wildfowl away from a landowner’s decoy pond, for the purpose of harming the landowner’s profit, is actionable interference with lawful use of land and livelihood, and is not defeated by the plaintiff’s lack of prior ownership of the animals.


Keeble v. Hickeringill, 11 East 574, 103 Eng. Rep. 1127 (K.B. 1701)