anja amend-traut accommodate “craftsmen” (Handwercks Leuth) of the sovereign in the claimant’s inn which was let to “seek profit” (damit Profit [zu] suchen), and due to many other obligations.18 Against the reproach of “such slavery” (solcher Sclaveray)19 Ludwig von und zu Weiler responded by submitting a mandatum sine clausula to the Imperial Chamber Court, in which he claimed a violation of his imperial knighthood liberties and the venue privileges of persons proximate to the Empire protecting him, which followed from the most recent Imperial Recess and the procedural order of the Imperial Chamber Court.20 The intervener Eberhard Ludwig von Württemberg on the other hand – pointing out a number of similar cases – asserted the jurisdiction of the Württemberg feudal court. Also, Weiler and Eichelberg were Württemberg fiefdoms and the feudal law provided that vassals could be deprived of their fiefdom if they abused their subjects.21 However, after presentation of the imperial privileges of the Franconian imperial knights of 1609 and 168822 and several older decisions of the two supreme courts, according to which the “fiefdom jurisdiction extended only to those rights and obligations which the feudal lord and the vassal or the vassals among themselves had against each other due to the fiefdom, but did not extend to the vassals’ subjects”, rather the supreme imperial courts according to RKGOPart 2 tit. 4 ff. had sole jurisdiction in matters against persons immediate to the Empire,23 the inhabitants of Weiler and Eichelberg were told that the legal 18 HStAStuttgart, C3, fascicle no. 4671, [Q] 3, fol.12, undated appeal. 19 HStAStuttgart, C3, fascicle no. 4671, [Q] 3, fol. 2R. 20 With reference to Part 2 Tit. 1 and 26, HStAStuttgart, C 3, fascicle no. 4671, [Q] 2. 21 HStAStuttgart C3, fascicle no. 4671, extract of the intervention of 20 November 1700, [Q] 9, Intervention [Q] 11, fol. 3, 18. 22 HStA Stuttgart C3, fascicle no. 4671, Lit. H [Q] 36. 23 [D]ie Lehens Jurisdiction sich nur auf die Jenige jura und obligationes, welche der Lehnsherr und Vasall oder die Vasalli unter sich selbsten von wegen deß Lehens gegeneinander haben, nicht aber auf deß vasalli subditos, HStAStuttgart C3, fascicle no. 4671, [Q] 29, fol. 3. Imperial Chamber Court mandate of 1696/97, which overturned the legal action brought before the Wertheim feudal court by Schultheiß, mayor, and the municipality of Neunstetten against their Berliching sovereigns, [Q] 29, fol. 30; Aulic Council’s Conclusum of 1698, issued upon a rescript of Leopold I. to the Bishop of Würzburg regarding the matter of the subjects of the Count of Hatzfeld of the office Haltenbergstetten against the civil servants of Hatzfeld, ibid.[Q] 35, fol. 48. 83
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=