Schrevelius’ opinions seem to have been considerably more complex than just classifying the master-servant relationship as a matter of family law. This result leads us to another question: Did other Swedish scholars than Schrevelius characterise the masterservant relationship as a matter of family law? As a background to that question, let us briefly repeat some of the statements of the most prominent legal writer of the 18th century, David Nehrman.193 When analysing the institution of hiring (Sw. lega) Nehrman sorted the master-servant relationship under the heading of the Roman law concept locatio conductio operarum.This was a contract between two independent parties, which however imposed openended obligations between the parties; the master should protect the servant, the servant should be subordinated and loyal to the master. Thus, some terms of contract in question must be considered as “natural”, and thus inaccessible for the parties’ disposal. These natural terms were mainly identical with those that were applicable between parents and children. These ideas, which Nerhman elaborated as early as in1729, had a significant impact on Swedish private law doctrine well into the 19th century.Not until the 1840s was a comprehensive private law work published, namely Schrevelius’ book, which is discussed above.194 During the intermediate years, the contractual approach coloured with family notions which Nehrman had expressed, was a predominant feature in legal education, in the preparatory works of the legislator as well as in legal writing. c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 93 3. 8. 2 “the most common op inion” be fore winroth? nehrman’s legacy 193 See above, Part II. 194 Adlercreutz,A1990, p. 20; Björne 1995, pp. 78-81; Modéer 1997, pp. 113-114, 152-155.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=