the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 140 Only on 2 October 1619 did Arvid Stålarm, trying to avoid further consequences, send a delegate, Anders Larsson, “inhabitant of Stockholm.” Via his delegate, Stålarm pleaded illness and claimed that everything had already been settled in 1614. The Svea Court of Appeal wryly observed that there actually was no obligation to even consider this belated account. It was further commented that the conciliation of 1614 only held true for the case between Planting and Karl Persson. As a consequence, insententia definitivaon 12 October 1619, Tursunperä was granted to Planting (and his wife), and Arvid Stålarm faced a fine totalling 240 marks for not replying to the writs in due time. Thus, after 17 years of legal proceedings, even Tursunperä now belonged to its rightful heir(s). The only problem was that Stålarm had mortgaged the Tursunperä estate to another nobleman, Henrik Fleming, who was unwilling to give it up. Thus, in 1622, Planting returned to the Court of Appeal, asking for other estates that Stålarm had in his possession as compensation. The Court accepted his petition. At some point after this, Planting eventually got the Tursunperä estate. During the case, Planting was duly acting as the representative of his wife in the court. The inherited landed property of a wife was considered hers, and not even the husband had the right to alienate this property, albeit in extraordinary circumstances.381 In practice, however, as the husband was considered the head of the household and the legal representative (Sw. målsman) of his wife, neither the documents nor his contemporaries necessarily made a distinct difference between the inherited property of spouses.382 In the court case, the focus was on Planting and his claims, and the wife remained on the side. For example, theLiber Causarum commented on the rent that he had been deprived, and on the compensationhe was entitled to.383 In many cases, this system provided the wife with the best possible protection. Sometimes, however, the scheme could backfire, if (as will be observed in the last case in this article) the husband neglected his duties or if the property of the wife was not recognized as hers and was confiscated along with that of her husband.384 381 KrL, Jordabalken, sections 27-28. 382 KrL, Giftobalken (Chapter on Marriage), section 9. 383 “[O]på then renta som i 25 åhr haffwer warit för honom borto, såsom och hans skadestånd [...]”(emphasis mine), see protocols 19 October 1619, RA, SHA, E VI a 2aa, Liber causarum 18. 384 See also Lahtinen, Anu 2004 p. 39; Lahtinen, Anu 2009a p. 60.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=