the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 366 the cases.1083 There may seem to be contradictions between the 1614 Ordinance of Judicial Procedure, the appointment of judges in the same year, and the 1615 Procedural Rules for the Court of Appeal. First, in the documents from 1614, a judgement of the Court of Appeal should be final,1084 but at the same time, even though the judges gave the King’s judgement, the King retained some power to offer remedies against its judgements.1085 In the Procedural Rules of 1615, the Court of Appeal was described as a “Supreme Court, against which there is no appeal” (Supremum Judicium, à quo non est appellatio),1086 but the King still retained the right to grant abeneficium revisionis.1087 Sture Petrén has argued that while the beneficium revisionis remedy was a novelty in 1615, the possibility of asking the King for review still represented continuity since the King had previously had the right to offer extraordinary remedies against judgements issued on his behalf.1088 Stig Jägerskiöld has claimed that there were no novelties but that the King’s personal right to adjudicate disputes was always above the final judgement of the King’s court.1089 In my view, a distinction between ordinary remedies (such as appeal) and extraordinary remedies (such as granting a new trial), may clarify the problem.1090 Even if today’s terminology cannot be straightforwardly applied to sixteenth- and seventeenth-century law, there was obviously a distinction between some more ordinary forms of attacking a judgement and some forms that were reserved for cases where there were extraordinary reasons for a retrial. In this regard, the High Council and the Svea Court of Appeal were intended to have the same status: they should act as the King’s courts, but the King could grant remedies in extraordinary cases. 1083 Cf. the chapter of Mia Korpiola in this volume pp. 71-80. 1084 Arts. 8, 10 and 13, Ordinance of Judicial Procedure, Rättegångs-Ordinantie (1614), in Kongl. stadgar, ed. Schmedeman pp. 136-138. 1085 Appointment of judges, Fullmacht för Konungens Domhafwande, 16 Feb. 1614, in Kongl. stadgar, ed. Schmedeman, p. 142, cf. arts. 7-8, Ordinance of Judicial Procedure (Rättegångs-Ordinantie ,1614), inKongl. stadgar, ed. Schmedeman, p. 136. 1086 Rättegångs-Process, 23 June 1615, inKongl. Stadgar, ed. Schmedeman, p. 143. 1087 Art. 35, Procedural Rules for the Court of Appeal, Rättegångs-Process, 23 June 1615, in Kongl. Stadgar, ed. Schmedeman, p. 161. 1088 Petrén, Sture 1964 pp. 3-45. For similar views, see also Edén, Nils 1902 pp. 247-250; Afzelius, Ivar 1914 p. 172; Bendz, Gunnar 1934 pp. 938-941. Cf. Almquist, Jan Eric 1941 pp. 63-64. See an earlier standpoint of Petrén, Sture 1945 pp. 176-184. 1089 Jägerskiöld, Stig 1984 pp. 218-219. See also Almquist, Jan Eric 1940 p. 477. 1090 Cf. Jägerskiöld, Stig 1984 p. 219.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=