L Balveny v L Innes.

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns a dispute between Plaintiff and Defendant regarding the payment of duties on certain lands that were leased (set in tack) by Company A, the heritor of the lands, to the Plaintiff. The Defendant, as possessor of the lands, was summoned for payment of duties dating from the crop year 1623 and continuing thereafter. The Defendant argued that he could not be liable because he had acquired a lease of the same lands from Plaintiff's author, Company A, and had been in possession for eight or nine years. The Defendant contended that although Plaintiff’s lease was anterior, he was not an unjust possessor nor acting in bad faith, since Company A had been in possession for five years immediately prior to granting the Defendant’s lease without interruption by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant claimed that Company A, as heritor, was entitled to maintain possession and right, and the Plaintiff could not enforce duties under his earlier lease without showing how possession was lost by the Defendant. The court rejected this argument, holding that Plaintiff’s earlier lease was valid, that Plaintiff offered to prove continuous real possession for ten years, and that neither Company A’s nor Defendant’s possession could be deemed lawful within the period of Plaintiff’s lease.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Defendant, possessing lands under a lease from the same heritor as the Plaintiff, can be held liable for duties payable under Plaintiff’s anterior lease.
2. Whether possession by Company A or the Defendant can be considered lawful or interrupt the Plaintiff’s right under an earlier lease.
3. The evidentiary requirement for proving loss of possession (deed quomodo desiit possidere) in the context of competing leases and possession claims.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• The Defendant acquired a lease from the same heritor as the Plaintiff and has possessed the lands for eight or nine years.
• Although Plaintiff’s lease is anterior, the Defendant is not an unjust possessor nor acting in bad faith.
• Company A, the heritor, was in possession for five years immediately before granting the Defendant’s lease without interruption by the Plaintiff.
• The heritor’s possession when granting the lease supports the Defendant’s right to possession.
• The Plaintiff cannot enforce duties under his anterior lease without showing how possession was lost by the Defendant (i.e., without a deed quomodo desiit possidere).

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff’s lease is anterior and valid.
• The Plaintiff offers to prove continuous real possession for ten years under his lease.
• Neither the heritor’s nor the Defendant’s possession can be considered lawful within the period covered by the Plaintiff’s lease.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the competing claims of possession and lease rights by focusing on the chronology and lawfulness of possession. It held that the Plaintiff’s anterior lease, supported by an offer to prove continuous real possession for ten years, outweighed the Defendant’s later lease and possession. The Defendant’s claim that possession by the heritor immediately prior to granting his lease justified his possession was rejected because the heritor’s possession and the Defendant’s possession were not lawful within the timeframe of the Plaintiff’s lease. The court further held that the Plaintiff was not required to show a deed quomodo desiit possidere (proof of how possession was lost) because the Plaintiff’s continuous possession under the anterior lease was sufficient to maintain the claim. The court thus sustained the action against the Defendant for payment of duties on the lands.

Holding and Implications

The court sustained the action against the Defendant, ruling that the Plaintiff’s anterior lease and possession rights prevailed over the Defendant’s later lease and possession. The Defendant was held liable for the payment of duties on the lands from the crop year 1623 onward. This decision directly affects the parties by affirming the Plaintiff’s rights under the anterior lease and rejecting the Defendant’s possession claim. The opinion does not establish new precedent beyond the application of established principles governing possession and lease rights.