Being not a lawyer, Justine, I personally find the construction and sense of that old Supreme Court Jurisprudence about "consignation" you presented rather abstruse and tough to comprehend, but I think that both its grammar and syntax are correct and beyond reproach:
"(T)he disagreement between a lessor and a lessee as to the amount of rent to be paid by a lessee cannot be decided
in an action of consignation but
in that of forcible entry and unlawful detainer that the lessor institutes when the lessee refuses to pay the lessor the rents that he has fixed for the property."
In that sentence construction, after stating the first alternative with the phrase "cannot be decided in an action of consignation," the ellipsis (a shortening linking device) "that of" is used to avoid repeating the longer five-word phrase "in an action of" for the second alternative that when stated in full would read as "but
in an action of forcible entry and unlawful detainer."
This use of the elliptical "that of" probably wouldn't have called that much attention to itself if not for the fact that the first alternative involves the unfamiliar legal term "consignation," which means "the act of giving, transferring, or delivering something into the hands or control of another."
IMAGE CREDIT: LAWLP.COMThis photo is being used for thematic representation purposes only
In this simpler but not necessarily clearer sense, a better way for that jurisprudence could be stated will probably be in a manner like this one: "(T)he disagreement between a lessor and a lessee
as to the amount of rent that needs to be paid by a lessee cannot be decided
in an action against illegal occupation of the property by the lessee but
in an action against forcible entry and unlawful detainer that the lessor institutes when the lessee refuses to pay the lessor the rents that he has fixed for the property."
Even so, Justine, I think that simplified construction of the jurisprudence still would sound vapid and incomprehensible for most laypersons and nonlawyers. This is something that jurists and lawyers have to work harder in clarifying in their legal briefs and decisions for public consumption.
As to your last question, I don't think the omission of the phrase "one of" in the following sentence would make its sense any clearer: "In the case at bar, Plaintiff seeks to have the obligation determined and fixed, hence his action should not be
one of consignation."
The problem here is still the vapidity and elusive sense of the word "consignation."
