344 nomic developments and the altered legal language of the period has been described in the following manner by a Soviet historian: The development of commodity and cash relations, manufactories, and the crafts led to a continued development of civil law; in common law, the right of ownership began to be distinguished from the right of occupancy, and the right of mortgage was regulated; within the law of contracts and torts, contracts for purchase, exchange, gifts, rents, piecework and delivery, advances, and deposition were developed; people were allowed to contract for the hiring of labor not only for household chores, but also for agricultural, artisan, and factory jobs, commerce, and other businesses (serfs could be hired with the permission of their owners); and the company contract was developed (an ukaz of 1698 allowed “merchants to trade as they trade in other countries, in companies”). Thus, in the bowels of feudal law, there arose bourgeois legal elements. A summary review of the proposed legal code dealing with procedural law reveals that Kristoffers landslag served as a model only to a modest extent. Instead, the commission used Swedish legislative acts from the seventeenth century in developing the new Russian legal code; most prominent was the use of the ordinance on trials (rättegångsordonantia) of 1614, the statute on trial procedure {rättegångsprocess) of 1615, the statute on execution {exekutionsstadga) of 1669, and the statute on trials {rättegångsstadga) of 1695.^®^ These Swedish legislative acts were available through Johan Schmedeman’s well-known collection of documents, which was generally known as the “Justitie-verket,” and which Heinrich Pick had brought to St. Petersburg from Stockholm.The Russian sources refer quite simply to the “iustitskoe delo,” that is, the “justitieverket,” and the pages referred to agree with the pagination in the original Swedish edition. The Russian commission on the laws of 1720 was thus conscious of the need for choosing only those parts of the Swedish material that were compatible with the state of Russian socio-economic and political develV. M. Kuritsyn, “Pravo i sud," Ocherki (1954), 396. Sec, for example. Part I, Chapter 35 of the draft, “Concerning the execution or implementation of verdicts”; TsGADA, f. 342 delo 31 chast’ 1 11. 360—407. For the full title of this collection by Schmedeman, see above, p. 308 note 19. TsGADA, f. 342 delo 32 chast’ 3 11. 251—259, 317—321. This is expressed very clearly in the ukaz issued by Peter in December 1718, which contained the following directives for the commission on the laws: "When you hear (the Swedish law) and some points do not seem to suit our people, then you shall against these points take points from the {Ulozhenie of 1649), or draw up new ones. Likewise, if some points in the (Ulozhenic) appear more important than in the Swedish one, then you shall write in accordance with these and prepare all of this, finally, for a presentation to Us by the date indicated above. As for the matters which concern estates {pomestnye dela), you arc to adopt the Estonian and Livonian laws, for they are more suitable and recognize a form of ownership which is almost the same as ours.” ZA (no. 74), 74. 162 163 1G4 165 166
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=