Entry in vacuam possessionem without violence does not infer ejection.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
There was a woman called Moncur that pursued one Campbell for the violent ejecting her furth of certain lands. It was answered, that he had committed no ejection, because the pursuer renounced and resigned over the said lands, furth of the which she alleged her to be ejected, into the Lord Argyle's hands, in favours of the defender, and he, by virtue of the said infeftment and sasine taken thereupon, entered in possession, and the pursuer willingly flitted and removed herself and her tenants off the ground, and left the ground void and redd. It was replied by the pursuer, and she offered her to prove, that notwithstanding of the said alleged renunciation, she remained in possession of the said ground, by the space of five years thereafter, and she in odium spoliatis out dejicientis ought to have the same to probation, and the allegeance made that she willingly removed was direct contrary; and albeit it meets and has place into a removing, as has been sundry times observed before the Lords, yet it never meets an ejection. The Lords, after many reports, found that the exception and duply should be admitted, the one founded upon writ, and the other agreeing to good reason, law, and equity, quia volenti non fit injuria.
