Keeble v. Hickeringill, 103 Eng. Rep. 1127 (Q.B. 1707)
Keeble v. Hickeringill is a foundational English decision that bridges property and tort law by protecting the productive use of land against intentional, malicious interference.
Does a landowner have a cause of action against a neighbor who, acting maliciously and without competitive purpose, intentionally frightens away wild game to disrupt the landowner's lawful business conducted on his own land, even though the neighbor never entered the land and the animals were not yet possessed?
A person who maliciously and intentionally interferes with another's lawful use of land and business, causing loss, commits an actionable wrong, even if the interference is accomplished from the defendant's own land and the plaintiff has not yet reduced the subject of pursuit (such as wild animals) to possession. Legitimate competition is permitted, but acts done solely to harm the plaintiff's trade or livelihood are unlawful.
Yes. The court held that Hickeringill's malicious and intentional disturbance of Keeble's decoy pond was actionable, and judgment was entered for Keeble.
Keeble v. Hickeringill is pivotal for three reasons. First, it articulates an early common law limit on malicious interference, foreshadowing modern torts such as interference with prospective economic advantage and unfair competition. Second, it complements the capture rule by clarifying that, even without property in wild animals prior to possession, the law protects the process of lawful capture when maliciously disrupted. Third, it illustrates how property law safeguards profitable uses of land against intentional, spite-driven conduct, while preserving space for robust, lawful competition.