There is no support found for Folke Schmidt’s thesis that before Winroth’s book of 1878 “the most common” opinion among Swedish scholars was to characterise the master-servant relationship as a part of family law.Up to1811some authors, such asTengwall and Calonius, tended to sort the issue under status familiæ, although it concerned a contract. After that, we have not been able to find any Swedish scholar besides Schrevelius and Delldén who explicitly made such an analysis. On the contrary, our study of 19th century scholarly writing, notes from lectures at universities and legislative preparatory works clearly shows that the most common opinion beforeWinroth was to take a perspective from the law of obligations in analysing the relationship in question. This conclusion holds for the period before 1800, starting with Nehrman in 1729, as well as the following period right up to Winroth’s debut in 1878. Furthermore, even if Schrevelius located the master-servant relationship within the framework of family law, it is worth repeating, first that he considered it to be founded on a contract, and second that he placed the “free” or “general” service contract under the law of obligations. c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 117 . Concluding remarks III 4. 3. 1 the most common op inion be fore winroth part iv, chapter 4
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=