the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 280 property were difficult to accomplish without some degree of cooperation with the debtor, because it was difficult to prepare an inventory of the estate without his help. Before legislation remedying such faults was enacted in the eighteenth century, management of insolvencies of uncooperative (e.g., fugitive) debtors was problematic.791 On the other hand, debtors could often be compelled to cede their assets, and late seventeenthcentury Swedish legislation distinguished truly voluntary from compulsory cessio bonorum.792 The debates include principled statements about the qualifications of the benefit and its scope. The qualifications of debtor were debated in an interesting case in 1661. In Becker v. Pahl, the votumof assessor Johan (Munkthelius) Lagercrona (1618 –1673) provided a broad analysis of questions related to the legal position of the debtor. The debtor in the case, Becker, could not point to any particular calamity such as shipwreck or fire. It was true that both Christian charity and the example of many foreign laws would have suggested leniency, if Becker had suffered losses during Sweden’s wars. However, this was not the case. The fact that other creditors had given Becker partial relief did not affect the legitimacy of Pahl’s claim. In addition, the debtor had been spending money beyond his means by building a luxurious house. More generally, the court had to make sure that bankruptcy was not encouraged by excessively lenient decisions (icke intempestiva judicum clementia giver mångom tillfälle att bankrottera).793 Lagercrona cited David Mevius’s (1609 –1670) Ius Lubecense (first published in 1642) as support for his stance that individual creditors could not be bound by a majority. However, Mevius had actually changed his position by 1661, advocating binding composition based on a majority decision in a book that explicitly linked the adoption of the new principle to the calamities suffered during the Thirty Years’ War.794 Themost interesting case analyzed by Jägerskiöld is the one concerning Stockholm merchant Jakob Rebelledey in 1677. In this case, many fundamental questions concerning insolvency were discussed by the Court of Appeal judges. However, Jägerskiöld’s account is somewhat confusing, 791 Palmgren, Bo 1937 pp. 314-316. 792 Jägerskiöld, Stig 1967b p. 337: Royal Resolution of 28 May, 1687. 793 Johan Becker /Matthias Pahl, RA, SHA, A IIa19, Codex rationum 2 March, 1661, 24 #; exceptional pagination. See also Jägerskiöld, Stig 1967b pp. 309-310. 794 Forster, Wolfgang 2009 p. 215, citing Mevius’s 1653 book: “Discussio levaminum inopiae debitorum, prout ea cum iusto et aequo moderamine in terris bello deperditis […].”
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=