About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

2 Alta. L.Q. 107 (1936-1938)
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm vs. Emmett - All-England Reports, vol.1, p. 825, in the Court of King's Bench - Nuisance - Effect of Malicious Motive - Intention to Injure

handle is hein.journals/alblq2 and id is 133 raw text is: HOLLYWOOD SILVER FOX FARM vs. EMMET
All-England Reports, Vol. 1, p. 825, In the Court of King's Bench.
Nuisance-Effect of malicious motive-Intention to injure.
The plaintiff was a breeder of silver foxes whose farm was situated
immediately across the road from the defendant. The former erected a
notice-board visible from the property of the defendant. The latter
believed that the notice-board would detract from the value of his land
and asked the plaintiff to remove it. This the plaintiff refused to do.
The defendant sent his son on several occasions during the fox-breeding
season to discharge a shot-gun not on the plaintiff's land but as close as
possible thereto. The defendant declared that the shooting was for the
purpose of killing rabbits, but the Court found that it was expressly for
the purpose of disturbing the foxes, which it did to such an extent that
one vixen would not breed and another that had four cubs ate them.
The defendant contended that the shooting on his own land was
not an actionable wrong even if he had done it with a malicious intent.
A verdict was entered for the plaintiff, the Court being of the
opinion that the defendant had no right to shoot on his own land
when his intention, obviously malicious, was to frighten the plaintiff's
foxes and in fact did so, thereby causing the plaintiff damage.
Counsel for the defendant relied upon the case of Bradford Corp. vs.
Pickles (1) in which the House of Lords held that the defendant could
not be restrained from sinking a shaft to draw away water which would
otherwise have become the property of the plaintiff, even if the defend-
ant's act was prompted by malice.
But the principle of that case must be modified as stated in Hals-
bury (2).
(1) 1895 A.C. 587.
(2) Halsbury 1st Edn. Vol. 21, p. 509, para. 851:  . . . an act which is
in ordinary circumstances innocent may under particular conditions become
an actionable nuisance, and whether such an act does constitute nuisance
must be determined, not only by considering abstractly the act itself, but
by reference to all the circumstances of the case, namely: the time of the
commission of the act complained of; the place of the commission, the
manner of committing it; and whether it is done wantonly or in the
reasonable exercise of rights; and the effect of its commission, whether
transitory or permanent; so the question of nuisance is one of fact.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.

Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most