Possession, if not founded on one or other of those titles, confers no right to land; and hence, in absence of such a written title, the land may be claimed by the King or by his donatory. So also moveables which have once had an owner, who is now unknown, or treasures which have been hidden, and are discovered, belong to the King. The King's right in regard to land is constituted jure corona; no sasine is necessary, nor indeed competent, since a sasine implies a superior, by whom the possession may be given, while, upon feudal principles, the King has no superior.

Definition source

Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Possession.” Public domain.

Legal Subject: Possession

Case	Date	Legal Subject	Abstract
Alexander Cunnynghame v. William Muir of Caldwall	1760	Possession, Disposition, Retour, Charter, Liferent, Feu duties	Alexander Cunnynghame pursued a claim to the Five Pound Land of Craigbeat and Kersemeadow against William Muir of Caldwall, who objected on the basis of tax-roll and vassal land distinctions and argued that Cunnynghame’s title was nominal and fictitious and that he lacked possession. Muir replied to Cunnynghame’s answers, insisting that the pursuer held neither valid title nor actual possession of the lands. Cunnynghame defended his liferent-right to the properties, rebutting the objections by citing historical retours and demonstrating vassal possession.
Anderson v. Saunders	1829	Sasine, Interdict, Aliment, Feu, Interlocutor, Possession	James Anderson and others raised an action of suspension and interdict against Robert Saunders concerning Saunders’ obstruction of a common stair leading to Anderson’s cellars and back-green, which Saunders used to access a sunk storey via a locked spar-door. Saunders answered the reasons of suspension and interdict, resisting the claims of nuisance and exclusive use. Following an interlocutor by Lord Medwyn, Ordinary, Anderson reclaimed against the decision, and Saunders subsequently appealed the interdict and suspension order barring his access. Both parties then submitted Cases arguing their competing rights to the stair, with Anderson contending that Saunders had no right to shut up the common passage and Saunders seeking alteration of the interlocutor granting the interdict against him.
Baillie v. Magistrates and Town Council of Glasgow	1796	Heritor, Prescription, Act of Parliament, Expenses, Possession, Interlocutor	John Baillie reclaimed against an interlocutor of the Lord Justice-Clerk in an action against the Magistrates and Town Council of Glasgow concerning the liability for costs of repairing foot-pavements. The defenders submitted information arguing that adjacent proprietors, and not the public, must bear the cost of such repairs.
Barry, et al v. Incorporation of Weavers, et al	1789	Possession, Prescription, Interlocutor, Damages, Representation, Kirk Session	The Reverend Mr George Barry and the remanent members of the Kirk-session of Kirkwall and St Ola defended against a petition by the Incorporation of Weavers, Hammermen, Taylors, and Shoemakers of Kirkwall to alter Lord Henderland’s interlocutor. The incorporations sought to modify the court’s earlier decision, and the Kirk-session submitted answers resisting the proposed alteration.
Campbell v. Arbuthnott	1793	Lease, Rent, Tack, Succession, Homologation, Possession	James Campbell, tenant in Broombank, as pursuer argued that a missive from the Viscount of Arbuthnott dated 1755 did not constitute a valid lease agreement. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Donald Campbell v. John Johnston	1793	Tack, Lease, Interlocutor, Possession, Inhibition, Rent	In an action of removing from Middle Craigs, Captain Donald Campbell petitioned the Court to remit an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Monboddo. John Johnston answered the petition, resisting Campbell's request to overturn the earlier decision.
Duke of Atholl v. Robertson	1797	Contract, Servitude, Decreet-Arbitral, Interlocutor, Possession, Suspension	James Robertson petitioned the Court of Session to challenge a 1761 arbitral decree affirming the Duke of Atholl’s ownership of seven shealings, arguing that the underlying 1716 contract was void under statute and contrary to public interest. The Duke defended the contractual and arbitral rulings, maintaining his title to the forest lands while acknowledging that the decrees reserved limited pasturage rights to Lude under specified conditions.
Dundas v. Duncan	1801	Lordship, Decree of adjudication, Possession, Prescription right	Dundas continued the case as assignee of Miss Helen Bucknay who initially brought the petition. Ms. Bucknay asked the Court to declare that she (now Dundas) has the only good and undoubted right and title to some houses situated in the burgh of Linlithgow over the defendant (Jean Duncan). Therefore he should cede his possession of these subjects. Defendant submitted and explained the title and deeds of the premises, such as a decree of adjudication and bond granted by the prior landlord who transferred the ownership to him and his family, in payment and in satisfaction of a debt.
Earl of Dalhousie v. Wilson	1802	Property rights, Lease, Assignment, Possession	Charles Wilson was a farm tenant in Millholm, which was originally leased to his father, William Wilson. The landlord of the property was the pursuer, Earl Dalhousie. The lease was then assigned to John Wilson, son of Charles Wilson, who did not reside in the farm, but hired a servant or a manger, James Keddie, to cultivate the land. John Wilson moved to Jamaica. The Pursuer brought an action to remove John Wilson and James Keddie from the possession of the farm, alleging that it has been subleased without his written consent as the proprietor. The Court concluded that John Wilson must be held as having abandoned his lease, and as the farm remained without a tenant, the landlord was entitled to enter to the possession.
Earl of Northesk & Factor v. Rolland, et al	1797	Lease, Tack, Assignment, Sublease, Rent, Possession
Fullarton & Fullarton v. Dalrymple	1796	Succession, Deed, Possession, Prescription, Debt, Tack
Gibson v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor	1795	Tack, Interdict, Damages, Lease, Possession, Interlocutor	Walter Scott petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor that found him liable for expenses only, seeking instead an award of damages for loss caused by an interdict against road access. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Gordon v. Representatives of Michie	1794	Tack, Possession, Rent, Liferent, Heritor, Sequestration	Gordon pursued the Representatives of Michie regarding possession of the Craig of Clunie lands. The petitioners, as heirs of a liferent-tacksman, maintained that they were entitled to continue in possession without summary removal, arguing that the law presumed tacit agreement and required warning before ejection. They initially submitted a memorial advancing this principle, and subsequently petitioned for an order permitting them to remain in possession and restraining the respondents from entering and inclosing the grounds.
Gow v. Russel	1794	Inhibition, Adjudication, Aliment, Possession, Evidence, Property	Nathaniel Gow pursued James Russel, an upholsterer, to abate a nuisance allegedly created by Russel's workshop operations in the upper floor, which Gow's family claimed caused excessive noise and ceiling damage contrary to Edinburgh's police rules. Gow argued that the workshop use violated the police regulations and warranted removal, while Russel maintained that the occasional noise inherent to an upholsterer's trade did not constitute a nuisance justifying such relief.
Grinlay &c v. Lord Gardenstone's Interlocutor	1792	Arrestment, Sequestration, Hypothec, Roup, Possession, Rent	Grinlay and others petitioned the court to revise Lord Gardenstone’s interlocutor, arguing that as bona fide purchasers at public sale they were not liable for furniture from Mrs. Campbell and that the sheriff’s rent preference was improper. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
James Lockhart v. John Cathcart	1832	Lease, Rent, Valuation, Possession, Adjudication, Debt	James Lockhart, as pursuer, presented a reclaiming note asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in his action against John Cathcart, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
James Waddel v. John Brown	1794	Tack, Lease, Possession, Succession, Adjudication, Disposition	James Waddel pursued John Brown concerning a lease of burgage subjects, seeking to determine whether such a lease bound a singular successor under the Act of 1449 without regard to the purchaser's knowledge. Waddel, by his agent Robert Craigie, petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor and either grant decree in terms of the libel or ordain Brown to answer facts and produce correspondence. Brown responded by information, arguing that a lease of burgage subjects was binding against a singular successor under the 1449 Act regardless of whether the purchaser had notice of it.
Janet Barber v. John Caddell	1789	Rent, Possession, Aliment, Tack, Lease, Proof	Janet Barber, relict of James Renny, pursued John Caddell of Cockenzie in a suspension bill alleging he had unlawfully sold her crop and seized her land without authority. Caddell petitioned the Court to remit the suspension, asserting claims of possession and rent arrears against her. Barber answered, defending her suspension and responding to Caddell’s allegations regarding possession and arrears.
Kirkpatrick v. Maxwells	1795	Succession, Possession, Contract, Prescription, Tack, Trustee	William Kirkpatrick claimed title to Kirkcudbright lands against the heirs and husbands of Sir Robert Maxwell’s sisters, who defended by asserting their own prior title founded upon ancient charters and prescription. After the Court issued an interlocutor, Kirkpatrick petitioned to have it altered, and the defenders subsequently disputed his claim.
Laird v. Grindlay	1790	Tack, Creditor, Succession, Debt, Possession, Interlocutor	John Laird and Company, merchants in Greenock, pursued Walter Grindlay, farmer at Seabegs, and John Buchanan, his mandatory, regarding a mill lease and Henderson’s employment, charging the defenders with unlawful possession and subtenancy. The cause proceeded to proof in June 1790, after which the pursuers petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor in February 1791, and the defenders answered in April 1791, contesting the allegations of unlawful possession.
Lauder v. Gibson	1793	Lease, Tack, Interdict, Possession, Aliment, Interlocutor	Dr. Colin Lauder pursued William Gibson regarding the use of a road, having obtained an interdict against Gibson. Gibson answered that the road was necessary for his farm and that the interdict caused him patrimonial loss, whereupon Lauder petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dreghorn's interlocutors against suspension of the interdict. Gibson responded that the road had been historically used by his predecessors and was not excluded by the terms of his lease.
M'Calmond v. Park	1792	Tack, Lease, Deed, Rent, Interlocutor, Possession	James M'Calmond petitioned the Court to alter Lord Stonefield's interlocutor refusing his bill of advocation against Hugh-Gavin Park, Tacksman of the Lands of Camregan. Park answered, contending that an unstamped obligation was not valid in law or equity.
M'Ghie and Attorney v. Forbes and Hay	1794	Debt, Succession, Creditor, Prescription, Possession, Compensation	M'Ghie and Attorney pursued Forbes and Hay, maintaining that William M'Ghie and Jean Forbes had possessed the houses without title and that their intromissions could not be enforced against the defenders. The defenders answered that Mrs Jean Forbes, as assignee of her husband's debt, had no claim beyond her jointure, and that they as trustees were not liable for her intromissions.
M'Leod v. Incorporation of Bakers	1784	Tack, Thirlage, Possession, Aliment, Tax, Charter	Malcolm M'Leod, tackman of the ladle-dues, pursued the Incorporation of Bakers of Glasgow for payment of ladle-dues on wheat and flour, including grain ground at the Partick mills. After M'Leod proved that such dues applied to all wheat entering Glasgow including that ground at Partick, the Bakers petitioned to alter the interlocutor and claimed immunity, whereupon M'Leod answered and produced a 1693 decree-arbitral between the Town and the Bakers. Following remits from the Lord Ordinary, the Bakers argued that the Magistrates had no right to levy dues on grain brought to Partick without entering the city, while the Magistrates maintained their entitlement to levy on such grain.
Macdougal v. Duncan	1791	Lease, Tack, Rent, Damages, Roup, Possession	Alexander Macdougal, as pursuer against Duncan, defender, petitioned the Court against Lord Alva's interlocutor to remit the decree of summary removing and damages. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Mackay and Fullerton v. Dalrymples et al	1795	Succession, Possession, Reduction, Entail, Prescription, Sequestration	Mrs Marianne Mackay, subsequently the Honourable Mrs Hamilton Fullarton, and her husband Colonel William Fullarton pursued Sir Hew Hamilton Dalrymple and other representatives of the Dalrymple family regarding succession to the estate of Bargeny, asserting rights as nearest substitutes under a 1688 marriage contract and entail which provided for female-line succession, while the defenders claimed title under a 1742 charter and seisin. The litigation involved petitions for sequestration of the estate, disputes over the custody of title-deeds and the removal of seals from estate repositories, and exchanges regarding the pursuers' standing to displace the defenders as heirs-apparent, the validity of a plea of minority, and allegations of contravention of irritant clauses. The pursuers sought to compel production of writings relied upon by the defenders and to conjoin reduction and declarator processes to ascertain their position under the entail, while the defenders maintained their lawful possession and disputed the pursuers' entitlement to the succession.
Magistrates of Dunfermline v. Lord Monboddo's Interlocutor	1789	Tack, Interlocutor, Thirlage, Possession, Onus Probandi, Burgh	The Magistrates and Town-Council of Dunfermline petitioned the Court to alter Lord Monboddo's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Magistrates of Perth v. Andrew	1797	Tack, Rent, Lease, Mala Fides, tenant, Possession	The Magistrates of Perth sought John Andrew’s removal from leased lands following the expiration of his lease, while Andrew claimed that permission from his brother to cultivate adjacent land constituted tacit consent to his continued possession. After Lord Armadale pronounced an interlocutor against him, Andrew petitioned the Court to alter that decision, prompting the Magistrates and Town-Council of Perth, along with Charles Bruce as Treasurer, to answer his petition and defend against the charge of horning.
Marjoribanks and Ramsay v. Spottiswoods	1795	Tack, Adjudication, Heritor, Lease, Possession, Removing	Marjoribanks and Ramsay raised an action to remove Spottiswoods from Hallyards farm after the lease expired, alleging that the defenders refused to vacate despite implied notice and prior conduct indicating an intent to leave. The defenders maintained that no lawful intimation had been given forty days prior to Whitsunday as required by the tack. The litigation turned on whether the statutory or conventional notice period for removal had been satisfied.
Marshall, et al v. Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow	1788	Interlocutor, Interdict, Suspension, Charter, Act of Parliament, Possession	The Examinators of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons in Glasgow, including Dr Robert Marshall, petitioned the Court to continue an interdict restraining the Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow from quartering soldiers upon them, pending a determination of their claimed charter-based immunity from such burdens. The Magistrates answered, responding to the physicians' argument that their faculty charter rendered them exempt from the quartering of soldiers.
Mary, &c Stewarts v. Sir John Scott and Others	1795	Teinds, Stipend, Patronage, Charter, Possession, Heritor	Miss Mary, Helen, and Isabella Stewarts of Barnhills pursued Sir John Scott for a conveyance of the teinds of Ancrum upon payment of six years' purchase, contending that Scott held the teinds only as patron under the Act 1690 and thus could be compelled to convey. Scott defended on the ground that his charters conveyed an heritable right to the teinds, not merely patronage.
Maxwells v. Kirkpatrick	1793	Succession, Possession, Contract, Prescription, Debt, Teinds	Heirs of Sir Robert Maxwell petitioned the court regarding title to Kirkcudbright Castle and its lands, challenging a 1793 interlocutor by claiming through Maclellane heirs and a 1664 contract with Sir David Dunbar and arguing that unfulfilled conditions invalidated Dunbar’s claims. William Kirkpatrick, trustee for Robert Maxwell, defended his title under a 1740 deed and 1762 trust. The heirs subsequently resisted Kirkpatrick’s eviction attempt by asserting rights through prescription and prior appraisings.
McBrayne v. Arthur	1786	Contract, Copartnership, Sale, Possession, Valuation, Tack	Donald M'Brayne sought suspension against Arthur to prevent the partners from altering business affairs following the expiry of their contract, alleging breach of the Sixth Article which required an offer of assets. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Mead v. Swinton	1796	Succession, Terce, Possession, Sequestration, Interlocutor, Adjudication	Lady Hannay claimed that as a widow she was entitled to the worst of two mansion-houses on the estate of Kirkdale as an appendage to her terce. The common agent maintained that she had no claim to a second mansion-house over and above her terce.
Murdo Mackenzie of Ardross v. Thomas Houston of Creich	1829	Salmon Fishing, Interdict, Interlocutor, Res judicata, Possession, Aliment	Documents available. Full description coming soon.
Playfair v. Riddell and Riddell 1 of 2	1793	Possession, Bargain, Sale, Rent, Locus Poenitentiae, Disposition	William Robertson petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against Messrs Riddell and Mr Davidson. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Playfair v. Riddell and Riddell 2 of 2	1793	Possession, Bargain, Arrestment, Condition, Tack, Mala Fides
Riddell v. Hope	1796	Lease, Tack, Rent, Possession, Adjudication, Interlocutor	Sir James Riddell pursued Robert Hope, petitioning the Court to find the defender not entitled to damages and to remit the cause to the Sheriff simpliciter. Hope subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor.
Scott v. Brodie	1802	Possession, tenant	John Scott purchased a farm in Ormiston, which was in possession of Mr. Brodie, as a tenant. As a result of landlord petitions, the Lord Ordinary issued a bill of suspension an interdict against the tenant. Parties discussed if Mr. Brodie was entitled to an away-going crop of that land or if the petitioner was entitled to the value of the crop, without allowance for feed and labour.
Scott v. Stonefield's Interlocutor	1793	Interlocutor, Caution, Possession, Suspension, Security
Simsons v. Nasmyth	1797	Lease, Tack, Possession, Rent, Interlocutor, Locus Poenitentiae	William and Walter Simsons petitioned against Lord Ankerville's interlocutors to assert their right to possess the lands of Easter Dawick and Newholmhope under a minute of tack. Sir James Nasmyth rejected their claim, contending that the alleged lease rested upon an unsigned and undated offer deficient in essential terms, and further alleging that the tenants' misconduct warranted their removal.
Sir Alexander Campbell, Baronet v. David Ballingall	1791	Feu duties, Possession, Freeholder, Liferent, Election contest, Entail	Sir Alexander Campbell, Baronet and others pursued David Ballingall, alleging that altered circumstances had affected his possession or right since enrollment and that his qualification was nominal or fictitious. Ballingall answered the condescendence and petition, denying any alteration of circumstances and maintaining that his qualification was genuine and valid. The dispute turned on whether Ballingall's enrollment remained effective given the alleged changes and the nature of his qualification.
Stevensons v. M'Gruther	1791	Tack, Lease, Rent, Possession, Teinds, Aliment	John and William Stevensons, tacksmen of Blairinroir and Longside, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor suspending their lease of the Hill of Longside, claiming entitlement to a disputed meadow as part of their three-fifths share of the hill under the lease terms and historical proportion. Janet Millar, relict of Duncan M'Gruther, and others answered that the meadow had never been connected with the hill but was held by the tenants of Straid, Cruitack, and Carnock prior to the Stevensons' leases. The parties subsequently exchanged replies and duplies debating whether the meadow formed part of the common muir of Longside or constituted separate grounds.
Stobie v. Scotland	1786	Tack, Interlocutor, Aliment, Lease, Possession, Sasine	John Stobie, a writer in Edinburgh, petitioned the Court to overturn a sheriff’s interlocutor that had absolved John Scotland, tenant in Lufcar, from the complaint. The dispute concerned legal objections to a holograph agreement. Scotland answered the petition, responding to the pursuer’s challenges to the instrument.
Sutherland & Gower v. Officers of State	1797	Teinds, Tack, Teind, Prescription, Lease, Possession