Holt CJ, delivered the opinion of the Court for the plaintiff, and said, that this is a new action, but is supported by the old reason and principles of law ; taking of wild-fowl is a lawful and profitable employment, it is as if it were his trade used upon his own ground, and surely it is lawful for a man to make the best advantage he can of his own ground; and there is the same reason for him to have this action, as for any tradesman for being damnified in his trade; and that is the reason why words, that are in themselves not actionable, will bear an action when they damnify a man in his trade.
Holt CJ
[1738] EngR 471, (1688-1710, 1738) Holt KB 19, (1738) 90 ER 908
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Keeble v Hickeringall (472) 1738
. .
See Also – Keeble v Hickeringall (470) 1738
. .
Cited by:
See Also – Keeble v Hickeringhall 1795
Case lies where the plaintiff had a possession without any property. Case in which the plaintiff declared, that he was possessed of a decoy pond frequented with ducks, of which he made great gains, and that the defendant knowing and maliciously . .
See Also – Keeble v Hickeringill 1796
. .
See Also – Keeble v Hickeringill 1809
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other
Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.385864
