Legal Definitions - not possessed

The legal term not possessed refers to a specific defense used in historical common-law lawsuits, particularly those involving the alleged wrongful taking or control of someone else's personal property.

When a defendant raises the defense of "not possessed," they are formally stating to the court that they never had physical control or possession of the items that the plaintiff claims they wrongfully converted or interfered with. Essentially, it is a direct denial of ever having the property in question, making it impossible for them to have wrongfully taken or kept it.

• Example 1: Misidentified Property

  Imagine a rare coin collector, Mr. Henderson, accuses his former assistant, Ms. Davies, of wrongfully taking a valuable Roman coin from his collection. Mr. Henderson files a lawsuit claiming Ms. Davies converted the coin for her own use. Ms. Davies's legal defense could be "not possessed," asserting that she never had the Roman coin in her possession, never took it from Mr. Henderson's collection, and therefore could not have wrongfully converted it. Her defense directly denies ever having control over the specific coin.

• Example 2: Disputed Office Equipment

  After a small marketing firm dissolved, one partner, Sarah, sues her former partner, Tom, alleging that Tom wrongfully took and kept a specialized, high-performance server that belonged to the partnership. Tom's legal team might use the "not possessed" defense, arguing that he never had physical control of that particular server. He might claim it was always located at Sarah's home office, or that it was sold by the partnership before the dissolution, meaning he never had possession of it to wrongfully convert.

• Example 3: Accusation of Taking a Rental Item

  A car rental company, "Wheels for You," sues a former customer, Mr. Chen, claiming he wrongfully converted a specific GPS device that was supposed to be returned with the rental car. Mr. Chen's defense is "not possessed," stating that he never received a GPS device with the car, or that he returned it with the car, and therefore never had possession of it at the time of the alleged conversion (i.e., when he was supposed to return it but allegedly didn't). He is denying that he ever had the GPS device in a way that would allow him to wrongfully keep it.