justitia et prudentia, kapitel 7 370 Roman law. Rather, it is an indication of the learned nature of the Svea Court of Appeal, as, in its judgments, it often re-interpreted concepts by giving them new and different meanings. Mention can be made of the attitudes to and meanings of statutory share (legitima) and the procedures for an appeal against an undutiful will (querelam inofficiosum testamentum). The concepts of Roman law were given new meanings in law-making by the court of appeal and were used rather as a tool for the reinterpretation of traditional Swedish law rather than as an authoritative source of law. Thirdly, theories of natural law played a major role in the application and making of law by the court of appeal. The adoption of the doctrines of natural law coincided with a period in which the Swedish judiciary underwent a judicial revolution. Natural law acted as an important tool for law-making by the court of appeal, not least in its attitudes to freedom of contract and arguments of fairness and equity. By referring to theories of natural law, traditional Swedish law could be adapted without recourse to new legislation. This method did not change statutory law but was an important aid in new interpretations of the law. During the 17th century the principles of freedom of contract andpacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept or good faith) became more and more important, and gave rise to the use of joint wills and estates ‘in tail’ in Sweden. These two institutions had in common that they, like the will, circumvented the legal rules of inheritance, which resulted in a greater freedom for individuals to distribute wealth to their heirs in the manner they saw fit. The doctrine of suum cuique (to each his own) is central to an understanding of the law of wills during the 17th century. Different types of disputes arose in the various Estates and each group wrestled with its own specific problems. Here, tradition also played an important role, as legislation on privilege or the royal proclamation of privilege had its origins in medieval law. It appears already in the provincial laws with their regulations for various groups in society. Thus, this was not entirely a phenomenon of the early modern period, as the idea had its origins in an earlier period. The principle of suum cuique made it possible for different groups in society to interpret the concepts of ownership and property in their own ways. To have the exact same perception of rules of property was not equally appropriate for all groups and actors in society. Different positions of power and spheres of influence coloured the various interpretations and perceptions of property. Equally, at any one time, there was not simply
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=