Warning

Info

LSD+ Case Briefs

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Read as much content as you want during your trial. Cancel any time and keep access for the full 14 days.

Keeble v. Hickeringill

- 103 ER 1127

Contributed by Chris22

An owner of land with a decoy pond is the first possessor of the ducks that swim in the pond. A neighbor who scares the ducks away

ICRA

Issue

Whether the landowner who owned the property on which wild ducks roamed also had a property right in the ducks.

Conclusion

Yes. Hickeringhill had interfered with Keeble's commercial use and enjoyment of his own property and had therefore committed a trespass.

LSD+ exclusive

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to this brief's summary.
Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Rule

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Analysis

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum

Brief Facts & Holding

Facts

  • In this English property law case, the plaintiff owned land on which he constructed a decoy pond to capture ducks for commercial purposes. The defendant shot a firearm from his own adjacent property in order to scare the ducks away. The plaintiff sued him for trespass on the case (the English common law tort for trespass to property), arguing that because he owned the land, he also had a property right to the ducks in the decoy pond; thus, the defendant had interfered with his use/enjoyment of his property by scaring the ducks away.

LSD+ exclusive

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to this brief's summary.
Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Holding

  • Hey! This is the holding for Pennoyer v. Neff. It probably isn't the holding for the brief you're looking at. Join LSD+ for full access.
  • A named property within the court's jurisdiction is attached to satisfy an unrelated claim, despite the owner of said property being a non-resident of the state.
  • A named property within the court's jurisdiction is attached as the basis for the suit (e.g., to quiet title), despite the owner of said property being a non-resident of the state.
  • An individual is sued who is a resident of the state, or who has been served with process while physically located within the state.
  • jurisdiction - Neff is neither a resident, nor was served while within the state. Service by publication may be valid for an
  • proceeding, where the owner would be made aware of the suit due to their property being seized, but not for
  • jurisdiction - the action was on the basis of a suit to receive payment owed, and did not relate directly to a property within the state.
  • jurisdiction, as the Oregon property was not attached to the initial suit, but rather was added in after the suit happened - note that Neff did not even purchase the property until after the suit had concluded.
  • Accordingly, the Oregon court did not have jurisdiction over the initial suit between Neff and his lawyer.
  • Enforcement of a judgment without jurisdiction denies due process!
  • Additionally, although judgments rendered by other states are entitled to full faith and credit, if that state did not have jurisdiction to render the judgment, it loses such entitlement.
Case Deep Dive

Join LSD+

Energize your law school studying with LSD+ for only $19 per month. Join over 40,000 applicants who have used LSD to crush admissions and empower yourself to crush 1L and beyond. With LSD+, you’ll get immediate access to many nice things including:

  • Full-access to over 50,000 case briefs
  • LSD’s DeepDive tool to read the case at different levels of summarization
  • Highlight-to-define to get easy to understand definitions in real time as you study
  • Social learning with LSD community case high points
  • Instantly brief over 6,000,000 cases with LSD’s cutting edge AI briefing tool
  • 14-day free trial

Keeble v. Hickeringill

Chat for Keeble v. Hickeringill
brief-362
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.