## Facts

- Sutton owned an enclosed parcel of land (a “close”).
- Moody entered Sutton’s close without permission.
- Moody hunted, killed, and carried away approximately 100 rabbits (“conies”) from the close.
- The pleading described the animals as Sutton’s conies but did not allege they were kept in a legally constituted warren or otherwise domesticated.
- Sutton sued in trespass for breaking the close and taking the conies.
- After verdict for Sutton, Moody moved in arrest of judgment, arguing no property could be claimed in conies because they are *ferae naturae* unless kept in a warren or similar enclosure.

## Issues

1. Whether a landowner may maintain trespass against an entrant who hunts and carries away wild animals (*ferae naturae*) found on the landowner’s land.
2. Whether it is sufficient to plead that the defendant, after breaking the plaintiff’s close, hunted and carried away the plaintiff’s conies, without alleging a warren, park, franchise, or domesticity.

## Decision

- The Court of King’s Bench denied the motion in arrest of judgment.
- The court sustained judgment for Sutton in trespass.
- The court accepted that, although conies are *ferae naturae*, the landowner has a qualified property interest in them while they remain on his land (*ratione soli/ratone loci*), sufficient to support trespass against a wrongdoer who enters and takes them.
- The declaration was legally sufficient without alleging a warren or special property beyond the animals’ presence on the plaintiff’s close.

## Legal Principles

- Wild animals are generally *ferae naturae*, but a landowner has a qualified property interest in such animals while they are on the landowner’s soil (*ratione soli* or *ratione loci*).
- That qualified interest supports an action in trespass against a person who unlawfully enters the close to hunt and carry away the animals.
- A plaintiff need not plead a warren, park, or domesticity to state a trespass claim where the taking is alleged to have occurred on the plaintiff’s close.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a trespass judgment for a landowner whose land was entered and whose wild rabbits were hunted and taken, recognizing a qualified property interest in wild animals while on the owner’s land that is enforceable against trespassers.


Sutton v. Moody, 91 Eng. Rep. 1063 (K.B. 1698)