What understood to be ' natural possession' of land.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Mr John Hay of Haiston and Sir James Douglas having both rights of apprising of the estate of Smithfield, did agree, that Sir James should have three parts, and Mr John one, and did obtain a decreet at both their instances for removing a tenant from some acres; but Sir James laboured and did sow the whole. Mr John did thereafter sow as much corn upon the sown land as would have sown his quarter, and now pursues an intrusion against Sir James, who alleged absolvitor, because Mr John was never in natural possession, and offered to give the fourth part of the rent the acres paid before. The pursuer answered, That the removing of the natural possessor was equivalent, as if Mr John had been in natural possession of his quarter; and therefore the offering to him the rent was not sufficient, yet he was willing to accept the rent for this year, so as Sir James would divide for timecoming.
The Lords found that in this process they would not compel Sir James to divide, but sustained the process, ad hunc effectum, that Mr John should have the fourth part of the crop, paying Sir James the expenses of labourage.
