Keeble v. Hickeringill

Property protection, malicious interference, and incentives to make productive use of land.

Keeble operated a decoy pond to attract wild ducks for commercial capture. Hickeringill, from nearby land, fired guns to frighten ducks away from the pond, not to capture them himself but to disrupt Keeble's livelihood.

The court allowed Keeble to recover for malicious interference with his lawful trade.

Chief Justice Holt distinguished ordinary competition from deliberate disturbance of another's productive use. A rival could lawfully establish another decoy pond and attract ducks away, but firing guns solely to destroy Keeble's operation imposed a loss without socially productive competition.

1. How does the rule allocate entitlements, precaution, information, or bargaining power?
2. Would a different remedy change transaction, error, or enforcement costs?