the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 232 Byius commune rules I refer to passages inCorpus iuris civilis, writings of the ius commune legal authors, and foreign legislative material heavily influenced byius commune (such as Constitutio Criminalis Carolina.) By court documents I mean court records of proceedings, preparatory memoranda of different sorts, decisions, and writings by lawyers. Lawyers’ briefs tend to include a diverse collection of legal sources, ius commune ones included, because lawyers often feel the necessity to include everything that may help their clients. It is, to be sure, not unproblematic to see the differences in the sources used by the two Courts of Appeal. The amount of Latin used in the archival sources is an indication, since ius commune sources tend to stand out from the rest of the text. Often, however, the learned-looking expressions in the documents amount to little more than quasi-legal and quasi-Latin language, so that “defend” becomes defendera and “pretensions” praetensioner.625 Such expressions were common in both courts. Frequent humanist expressions such as “vita et fama pari passu ambulant” also abound on both sides.626 When quasi-legalist terminology and humanist expressions - both intended to show off the author’s learning - are removed, a certain amount of truly learnedius commune still remains. On average, one finds more legal rules emanating from theius commune in the Dorpat court documents than in the Svea documents. The Dorpat court papers are dotted with examples of ius commune learning. In a case concerning land ownership, the defendant in his exceptio stated that “no one may transfer more rights to another than what he himself has.”627 To take another example, in an early appeals case on the position of a peasant servant, the parties discussed procedural questions in terms of numerous Roman law sources andius commune literature.628 625 Judge Bååth said in one case: “Finner fuller af actis Hr Ulfsparre uthi […] måhl vara coulpable, och förden skuld skylldig at lijda straff […] att denna hans poena[…] stricte affter bey statutueras. […] skulle kunna arbitrera, […] Hr Ulfsparre, non animo injuriandi […],” RA, SHA, A II a:23, Codex rationum 1666-1667, f. 4. 626 “Non audet stiguus Plato tentar, quod audet, Effrenis Monachus plenaq fraudis onus,”RA, SHA, EVI a 2 aa:128, Liber causarum 1650, Ingell Rochus v. Michel Fendt (no pagination). 627 “Nemo enim plus iuris in alium transferre potest quam ipse habet. L. nemo ff. de reg.jur.,” LVA, Akten des Livländischen Hofgerichts 1630-1709, 109/2/123, Akten des Livländischen Hofgerichts (1641), fol. 28 (Dietrich Rigeman v. Johann Berg). 628 (Justificatio appellationis, f.2) “Ut speciem litem cognoscat, 1.3. C. de edendo […] utrum cedere, an contendere ultra debeat, et si contendendum putet […] l. 2. ff. de
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=