238 What did the relatives pay when redeeming land? Were the provisions of the law regarding valuation followed? During the first half of the 17th century it seems that custom in southern and central Sweden was that the relatives redeemed land at a price which the seller and the buyer had already agreed upon. However, in northern Sweden there existed a system of “fixed land prices” in the villages, which applied, among other things, between siblings after a division of inheritance and in this region the relatives normally redeemed the land at the fixed price. Duringthe 15th and 16th century it seems that such fixed land prices could be found in certain parts of central Sweden. It is difficult to decide practice with regard to the redemption of relatives (only a few useful court records exist intact from this period). It seems that normally, however, the relatives had to pay the price that a buyer had already offered (how the situation was in northern Sweden before the 17th century is unclear). Towards the end of the 17th century, however, there took place a reaction worthy of note. Certain courts began to prescribe with reference to the law that relatives should redeem land according to valuation. In Svca hovrätt (the most important court of appeal) it seems that this reversal had taken place around 1677 and for a few years judgments were made strictly according to the law. In 1683 a royal resolution was issued which, among other things, drewattention to the fact that the law prescribed valuation. But strangely Svea hovrätt already the same year went back to the practice that existed before 1677 and began to demand that relatives should pay the same price that a buyer had already paid. Thus obedience to the letter of the law seems to have been short-lived although this period was certainly fresh in the memories of the LawCommission of 1686. In certain cases it can be ascertained that the buyer of the land paid a special “friend’s gift” or “honourary gift” either to the seller or to his closest relatives. To a certain extent this seems to have been some sort of protection against later redemption claims from the relatives; not just the land but also bördsrätt, the right to redeem land seems to hav'e been a commodity. 6. Land and kinship in a wider perspective An interesting observation in the court records is that the words hörd and bördsrätt had a double meaning. Often they meant the relatives’ right to redeem inherited land which was sold, i.e. what has been discussed above. But hörd often meant inherited land in general and bördsrätt can often be translated as “inherited property right”. Bördsrätt in its first meaning can be described as being latent or potential right of ownership and in the latter as being actual or real. Why then this double meaning? The explanation must be looked for via a discussion of the relationship between property and the kinship system.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=