entangled in insolvency – jussi sallila 281 given that the judges discussed both the possibility of restricting the debtor’s liability and the option of respite (dilation). A closer reading of the case file shows that the various ways of managing insolvency were indeed entangled with each other in Rebelledey’s case. In July and August 1674, Rebelledey’s creditors had initiated execution measures at the office of the Over-Governor of Stockholm. Soon afterwards, the King “recommended” that Over-Governor Rålamb arrange some kind of extension (dilation) agreement between Rebelledey and the creditors, and the wish of His Majesty was followed in September 1674.795 However, this did not provide a lasting solution to Rebelledey’s problems. In 1675, he wished to cede all his property to his creditors. On 1 September 1 1675, the King issued a letter/rescript ordering the Town Court of Stockholm to handle Rebelledey’s case. The royal letter was issued in Uppsala, where the Diet of 1675 convened.796 The Town Court decided the case on 10 January 1676.797 Rebelledey’s creditors had received all his property but were not willing “to let him be free from further charges” (honom för allt vidare tilltal omolesterad låta).798 The expression used by the court corresponded closely with that used in the royal resolution on burghers’ complaints (emot deras ytterligare tiltaal söker blifwa frij och omolesterat) issued at the Uppsala Diet acouple of months before.799 The connection between the resolution and Rebelledey’s case seems clear. The rescript of the king was countersigned by Johan Paulin Olivecrantz (1633 –1707), the secretary of the King responsible for drafting the resolutions concerning the complaints of the Estates. Olivecrantz was the son of archbishop Laurentius Paulinus Gothus (1565 –1646) and therefore involved in the insolvency lawsuits of the heirs of the archbishop.800 795 Letter of Over-Governor Rålamb to the King, 19 Sept. 1674, RA, SHA, E II a 2 aa: 311, Liber causarum 127:5, no 18, fol. 18. 796 The letter/decree of the king, 1 Sept. 1675 given in Uppsala, Supplement to Rebelledey’s exception on 26 Feb. 1676, RA, SHA, E II a 2 aa: 311, Liber causarum 127:5, 18, fol. 1415. 797 The judgment is summarized by Jägerskiöld, Stig 1967b pp. 321-322. However, there is no mention of the fact that the case was referred to the Town Court by the King. 798 A copy of the Town Court judgment is attached both to Rebelledey’s citation on 26 Jan. 1676 and the reciprocal citation of his creditors on 28 Jan., RA, SHA, E II a 2 aa: 311, Liber causarum 127:5 no 18, fols. 2-3, 5-6. See also Jägerskiöld, Stig 1967b pp. 321-322. 799 Royal edict of 3 Oct. 1675. 800 See Asker, Björn 1994 pp. 215-220.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=