Action for violent profits was found competent, only to him who was in actual possession.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
There was one David Damitston that had obtained a decree against certain of the Baillies of the town of Linlithgow, and certain others, for the demolishing and downcasting of a new mill pertaining to the said David, therefore he pursued the said persons for the violent profits. It was answered, That he could have no action to pursue for the violent profits into his name, because he was not occupier. To this was answered, That the action of the violence was ay accessory to the principal debt et accessorium sequitur naturam principalis. The Lords found by interlocutor, That he could have no action to pursue for the violent profits, because he was not occupier himself, but that the action was only competent to him that really occupied and was in possession.
