Possession must be restored at the termination of the Right.
George Harris v. Anderson
1591. Case No. No 70.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
George Harris having pursued one Anderson for ejection, obtained decreet, and for the violent profits comprised the lands; and after comprising, obtained infeftment and sasine thereof, and warned the tenants to remove; and having gotten decreet of removing, was, by virtue thereof, put in possession. This first decreet of ejection being reduced afterwards by the defender's son, the comprising, and all that followed thereon, behoved to fall in consequentiam; and so Anderson younger sought to be repossessed. Excepted, That notwithstanding of the decreet reductive, the pursuer could not be repossessed, because the defender obtained not possession of the lands, by virtue of his decreet of removing, obtained after the comprising, but aliunde et ex alia causa, et ab alio auctore, and produced, instanter, to verify the same, certain writs and infeftments. Replied, That the defender could not be heard to allege any other cause of possession than that by which the pursuer and his father were dispossessed; for if so were, all decreets of repossession and redemption might always be eluded by alleging of forged titles aliunde et ex alia causa.——The Lords, in præsentia regis, repelled the allegeance, and ordained the pursuer to be repossessed.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 599. Spottiswood, (Possession.) p. 229.
