The plaintiff was fishing in the sea for pilchards and had drawn his net around a large number of fish, but at a moment when his net remained open by some seven fathoms and he was about to close it, the defendant rowed up to the opening of the net and disturbed the fish so that they escaped.
Held: The defendant was not liable for the plaintiff’s loss of the fish, because at the critical moment the plaintiff had not yet taken possession of the fish, which he could only do by closing the net.
Citations:
[1844] EngR 1009, (1844) 6 QB 606, (1844) 115 ER 228
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – The Ship Frederick Gerring Jr v The Queen 1-May-1897
(Supreme Court of Canada) The court was asked whether a vessel was forfeit to the Crown on the grounds that it had been used for fishing within a three mile limit from the Canadian coast. The fishing process had started outside the limit. A large . .
Cited – Borwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, Animals
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.305601