the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 270 sition through a majority decision in which priorities and liens were disregarded. However, these special privileges were highly controversial in seventeenth-century Sweden. Swedish legal authorities did not always accept such privileges as part of the law of the land. The judges of the Svea Court of Appeal also had a remarkably negative opinion of the 1652 resolution of Christina. In a 1658 case cited by Jägerskiöld, it was even debated whether the resolution was in breach of the royal oath in which Christina had guaranteed to uphold equality before the law.742 In his 1666-68 proposal for a new inheritance law, also regulating the realization of an insolvent estate, Johan Stiernhöök (1596 –1675) discussed the possibility of versio in remprivileges and denied it.743 A similar conclusion was drawn by Thomas Lohrman junior (1646 –1722), future judicial burgomaster of Uppsala, in his 1669 Jena dissertation comparing Roman and Swedish law.744 More generally, Lohrman’s dissertation is interesting because the term concursus creditorum is included in the long title of the book. This was certainly one of the first scholarly treatments by aSwedish author in which the order of priority between competing creditors in bankruptcy was discussed on the basis of contemporary European doctrine.745 By contrast, there is no sign of the term or the related scholarly classifications in the 1643 law proposal drafted by Figrelius. Forster has stressed that the stabilization of the order of priority was a prerequisite for the development of a modern bankruptcy procedure.746 In Sweden, the development of the order of priority progressed through interpretation of old Swedish law and court practice and the adoption of foreign solutions. An illuminating example of the interplay between old Swedish law and Roman concepts is 742 Jägerskiöld, Stig 1967b p. 374, concerning the Anna Haak /Sara Hidding case (Cod.rat. 11 March, 1658). 743 “Här blifwer och frågatt, om icke den, som giör försträckningh till någott huus, skipz eller brukz inrättande, icke må för andra creditorer hafwa sin præference och fyllnadh på det, som försträckningen ähr giordt uppå?[…] i wår lagh finne wij ingen åthskillnatt, uthan räcker eij åth allom till, tå briste så af marck som af marck,” Johan Stiernhööks förslag till ärvdabalk II, Cap. 6, Förarbeten till Sveriges rikes lag 1666-1686, ed. Almquist, pp. 77-78. 744 Bechmann/Lohrman 1669 Th. XIX(no pagination): “Hinc nec illi jus prælationis habent, qui ad refectionem domus, alteriusve rei, pecuniam crediderunt, utut eo nomine mutuo data, impensa, eoque tempore, quo petitur pecunia, extet; qui tamen Jure Rom. prioribus creditoribus expressam hypothecam habentibus, sunt potiores.” 745 The fact that Lohrman was indeed the author is confirmed by the congratulation of the præses Bechmann on the last page of the book. 746 Forster, Wolfgang 2009 pp. 176-182.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=