1 Introduction
In the impressive body of rulings of the courts of the Free City of Cracow, inheritance cases form a small group,3 but are particularly rich in legal scholarly content. Some court battles between the wealthier inhabitants of the Republic of Cracow fought over substantial inheritance estates lasted for years, and lavishly rewarded legal argumentation was used as a weapon. This was guaranteed by the best Cracowian lawyers and professors of the Faculty of Law at Jagiellonian University, with Adam Krzyżanowski, a lecturer in French civil law, at the forefront, whose interpretation of the provisions of the nc enjoyed the highest level of authority among Cracowâs judges. The most prominent example of this was the struggle between several powerful families (the SoÅtyk, Parys, the Potocki and WielogÅowski families) over the inheritance of Father MichaÅ SoÅtyk, dean of the Cracow Cathedral Chapter, who died in 1815.4 It encompassed seven lawsuits directly related to the acquisition and partition of the estate, fought almost continuously between 1818 and 1832. Over the course of them, Cracowâs courts issued 19 judgments (three in default), including two by the Court of Last Instance. The case was also the subject of five legal opinions of the Faculty of Law of Jagiellonian University, and it was once litigated as restitutio in integrum.5
As far as the source material is concerned, the starting point for the presented research on the application of the law of succession of the nc by Cracowâs courts, are the opinions issued on this matter between 1818 and 1833 by the Faculty of Law of Jagiellonian University. According to the findings of Andrzej Dziadzio, Mateusz Mataniak and Piotr Michalik, there were 49 such
Kodeks Napoleona (polish translation of 1808), (print, paper, 1813)
source: national library of france, 8-f-45372; scan by gallica digital library in public domain (wikimedia commons)
2 Order of ab intestato Succession
Undoubtedly, the least problematic challenge for the courts of the Free City of Cracow was the application of the provisions of the nc regarding the order of ab intestato succession. Both the Tribunal of First Instance as well as the Court of Appeals and the Court of Last Instance, correctly determined the heirs entitled to inheritance and the number of portions due to them. It is noteworthy that this was also the case in cases of statutory succession of legally recognised natural children, to whom Articles 756 and 757 of the nc granted the right to inherit from their parents concurrently with the lawful heirs, as Cracowâs courts pointed out in the cases of the Molak (1828â29)7 and Nowicki (1831â32) families.8 In contrast, doubts arose in the case of the succession rights of the spouse, where French law diverged from Austrian and old-Polish regulations, but the issue only became relevant in the event of a dispute as to the existence or validity of a will or a donation. In the case of statutory succession, the unambiguous wording of Article 767 of the nc left no chance for the spouse
3 The Rights of Compulsory Heirs â The System of Reserve
The system of reserve (réserve héréditaire) introduced by the creators of the Code civil12 was alien to Cracowâs lawyers, but the mechanism itself for securing the rights of compulsory heirs was familiar to them from the system of legitime under Austrian law. The courts of the Free City of Cracow therefore had no problems in applying the new institution in simple cases, where knowledge of the statutory order of succession and a literal interpretation of Article 913 et seq. of the nc was sufficient. This was the situation in the Lebowski family case (1820), in which the Tribunal of First Instance and the Court of Appeal unanimously limited Franciszek Wolffâs testamentary disposition to half of the inheritance, i.e. the amount of the disposable portion.13 This was also the scenario in the Rohlik family case (1825â26), in which the Tribunal of First Instance and the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed a claim âfor the designation of a
Referring to the wording of Article 334 of the nc, which required an official act of acknowledgement for the recognition of a natural child, and which could be expressed in a birth certificate, the Tribunal of First Instance correctly dismissed the claim, as the plaintiff had not submitted such a document and the baptismal certificate did not contain a relevant statement by Jan Nowicki. However, based on the argument of nuisance (appeal) of the plaintiffâs attorney Wincenty Szpor, the appellate court changed the first instance judgment granting Jan Nowicki the status under Article 756 of the nc. This was because the Court of Appeal assumed that the baptismal certificate had been drawn up before the nc came into force, so the formal requirements of Article 334 of the nc did not apply to it. However, the baptismal certificate itself, which states that Szymon is Johnâs son out of wedlock, and that he was nevertheless given his fatherâs surname, shows that the latter had the will to acknowledge him legally. What is more, he did not change this will until his death, and in his handwritten will of 1829 he gave him his blessing as a ârecognised sonâ, which, after the will had been officially presented in accordance with Article 1007 of the nc, gave this declaration the value of an official act.16
The argumentation of the Court of Appeal (composed of Nikorowicz, Piekarski, Januszewicz, GoÅuchowski and MÄ
czeÅski), although erroneous in the light of the letter and spirit of French law, as demonstrated by the defendantâs attorney Adam Krzyżanowski in his response to the appeal,17 is
A real challenge for the legal elite of the Free City of Cracow, however, was the court battle that lasted from 1827 to 1830 over the estate of Józef Sawiczewski, a well-known Cracow pharmacist and professor at Jagiellonian University, who died in 1825. It encompassed two lawsuits over the partition of the estate, the first of which in the years 1827â28 was, in terms of legal scholarship, one of the most interesting cases settled by the courts of the Republic of Cracow.21 The parties to the dispute were testamentary heirs, each of whom received one-sixth of the estate from the testator: the deceasedâs adult sons from his first marriage (Julian, Florian and Ignacy Sawiczewski), the widow from his third marriage, Aniela Sawiczewska (secundo voto Eminowiczowa), together with her minor children Konstanty and BolesÅawa from that marriage. Since the testator not only disposed of his property through his will but also
In the case of the Sawiczewski family, the Tribunal of First Instance erroneously adopted Article 913 of the nc as the basis for determining the amount of the disposable portion, which, according to this court, in view of the testator leaving five children, amounted to one-quarter of the inheritance. Based on Krzyżanowskiâs appeal, the Court of Appeal (composed of Piekarski, Januszewicz, SoczyÅski, GoÅuchowski and MÄ czeÅski) correctly pointed out that Article 1098 of the nc, which reduced the amount of the disposable portion in the case of generosity in favour of the testatorâs subsequent spouse to the amount of the portion of the child receiving the least, which in this case amounted to one-sixth of the inheritance (which the courts did not specify). This position was supported by the Faculty of Law of Jagiellonian University (composed of SÅotwiÅski, Jaworski, Szpor, SoÅwiÅski and Kojsiewicz) and was finally approved by the Court of Last Instance (composed of: Nikorowicz, Januszewicz, SoczyÅski, GoÅuchowski, MÄ czeÅski, Dzianotty and Himonowski), thanks to which Cracowâs courts also correctly determined the amount of the reserve in this case. This, however, was the end of adjudication in accordance with the nc, as Cracowâs lawyers, educated on Roman and Austrian law, did not accept the French system of the law of succession based on the precedence of statutory inheritance over testamentary inheritance.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal of 17 January 1828 in case of Sawiczewscy, (manuscript, paper, 1828)
source: national archives in cracow, ank, 29/200/1730, 141; photo & permission by national archives in cracow
4 Testamentary Legacies
In the majority of the inheritance cases heard by the courts of the Free City of Cracow, the testators disposed of their property by will,25 and also appointing âuniversal heirsâ in it.26 It is clear from the court records of these cases, that both judges and attorneys-at-law, including professors of law at Jagiellonian University, treated the heirs so appointed as true heirs, trying to match specific provisions of the nc to this assumption. The consequences, judged in terms of the correctness of the interpretation of French law, varied. In the Styrio family case, which took place between 1821 and 1822, the dispute was over the inheritance of Tomasz Styrio, who bequeathed his entire estate to his wife Agnieszka Styrio in his will with the exclusion of the children of his sister Maria Roża née Styrio, entitled to inherit under Article 750 of the nc. In this case, both the Tribunal of First Instance and the Court of Appeal (composed
The situation was different in the above-mentioned case of the Sawiczewski family, in which Cracowâs lawyers demonstrated en masse a lack of understanding of the nc. Of Józef Sawiczewskiâs testamentary heirs, all of his children were compulsory heirs, and as such they took joint possession of the entire estate as soon as their father died. Aniela Sawiczewska, on the other hand, as his wife, not being a legitimate heir, was only a legatee under a general title, who, pursuant to Article 1011 of the nc, should apply to the heirs for the legacy due to her. However, based on the intention of the testator as expressed in his will, the courts of all instances recognised Florian Sawiczewski as a âuniversal heirâ, who took possession of the entire estate in natura and was obliged to pay the other testamentary heirs in equal shares. Contrary to the appearance created by the actual consent of the other heirs to Florianâs taking possession of the inheritance, the consequence of this state of affairs was not merely a formal breach of the Code, but a defective partition of the estate. The recognition of Aniela Sawiczewska as an heir resulted in her taking part in the settlements prescribed by Article 843 of the nc for the return to the inheritance estate of donations received from Józef Sawiczewski by his sons. This in turn led to a defective reduction of the testatorâs generosity under Article 922 of the nc.
5 Inherited Debts
Among the issues determined by the interpretation of testamentary legacies, one of the most important was liability for inherited debts. Disputes about them usually took the form of actions for payment. In the course of these, the courts decided on the extent of the liability of individual heirs, both towards the creditors of the estate and towards each other. In the majority of cases, the question of the extent of liability for the debts of individual heirs, as regulated by the provisions of the law of succession (Articles 870â882 of the nc), was not in dispute, and the subject of the decision was the proper application of the provisions of contract law. This was the situation in the case of the Dyktarski family (1824â25), where the dispute concerned the set-off of debts,30 and in the Kubecki family case (1826â29), where the application to co-heirs of the provisions on solidarity of debtors and divisibility of obligations, was disputed.31 However, in more complex cases, the issue of liability for inherited debts was only one element of the dispute, which concerned the determination of the acquisition and partition of the estate itself on the basis of the interpretation of the testamentary legacies. This was the case, inter alia, in the aforementioned multi-year court battle of the SoÅtyk family, in which MichaÅ SoÅtykâs nephews and testamentary heirs, WÅadysÅaw and Karol SoÅtyk, represented by Feliks SÅotwiÅski, clashed with the testatorâs other heirs, represented by Adam Krzyżanowski.32
This ruling was incorrect. It was Krzyżanowski who, using his legitimate arguments concerning the invalidity of the substitution, pushed through a ruling favourable to his clients, recognising them as statutory co-heirs of the property that the testator undoubtedly wished to preserve in the male line of the SoÅtyk family. However, the sanction of Article 896 of the nc did not apply to Karol SoÅtyk, who continued to be a legitimate âuniversal heirâ, i.e. in effect a general legatee. In accordance with the principle of favor testamenti, the courts
Judgment of the Court of Appeal of 3 August 1819 in case of SoÅtykowie, (manuscript, paper, 1819)
source: national archives in cracow, ank, 29/200/1715, 233; photo & permission by national archives in cracow
6 Law and Justice
The judgment of the Tribunal of First Instance was clearly contrary to the law, as the transitive decree in no way gave grounds to apply old law to the succession of an estate opened in 1819, i.e. nine years after the entry into force of the nc. This Code, enacted in post-revolutionary France, no longer recognised the category of civil death following perpetual monastic vows, and the rules of statutory succession should apply to the case. The fact was, however, that as a result of legislative negligence, no specific order of succession to the clergy had been established in the Free City of Cracow until that time, although in the socio-economic realities of the Republic this was an important issue.40 This did not occur until the Act of the Assembly of Representatives of 2 January 1821,41 incidentally enacted before the Court of Appeal issued its judgment in this case. The latter acknowledged the plaintiffsâ appeal written by SÅotwiÅski, in which he presented a way out of the situation that would simultaneously preserve the appearance of legalism and elementary social justice.42 The Court of Appeal (composed of Nikorowicz, Piekarski, Januszewicz, GoÅuchowski and SoczyÅski) thus ruled that, due to the fact that CzaÅczyÅski had been secularised by papal dispensation in 1815, the property accumulated from then until his death constituted his legacy and, pursuant to Article 748 of the nc, passed it in equal portions to his parents as legal heirs.43
7
A significant role in the legal practice of the Free City of Cracow was also played by so-called heirless estates. They are among the institutions present in all the codes that were in force in the Polish lands in the 19th century.44 As a general rule, in the absence of statutory heirs from among the family of the deceased or the renunciation by all those entitled to inherit from accepting the inheritance, the entity entitled to the inheritance in last place was the Public Treasury. Heirless estates belonged to the State iure imperii, i.e. by virtue of its sovereignty over a territory. This principle appeared in the nc in Article 768, which proclaimed that âif there is no surviving spouse, the inheritance belongs to the peopleâ. This provision also reaffirmed the general rule expressed in Articles 539 and 713 of the nc, which placed all vacant and ownerless estates in the category of public property. Acquisition of escheats took place on a statutory basis, following entry into possession by the decision of the competent court (Article 770 of the nc).45 The aforementioned Article 713 of the nc was a historical remnant of the medieval land regalia, under which all land with no other owner belonged to the ruler.46 The provision proclaimed that âProperty which has no owner belongs to the nationâ.47
The provisions of Articles 811 to 814 of the nc were specifically devoted to heirless estates. The former pointed to the circumstances in which an estate could be considered as heirless. These concerned the expiry of the time limit set for the notification to take possession of the inheritance, if it turned out that the heirs were not known or had renounced the inheritance. An additional condition was also the expiry of the time limit for making of the inventory (Article 811 of the nc). Article 812 of the nc required the Court of First Instance, in whose district the inheritance had been opened, to appoint a curator of the inheritance at the request of persons with a legal interest in it or the Government prosecutor. A further provision required the curator of the estate to make an inventory of the estate and to take all measures that would enable the estateâs rights to be effectively sought and protected, including litigation with those claiming against the estate. The curator also managed the estateâs assets, including transferring to the government coffers all funds belonging to the estate, in particular those obtained through the sale of movable and
Under the conditions of the Free City of Cracow, the implementation of Article 768 of the nc belonged to the senator overseeing institute affairs and the care of minors (in the original: on the administration of the treasury estate). It was incumbent on him to apply for affixing of a seal by the justice of the peace with jurisdiction over the location of the estate. It was also required to draw up an inventory of the estate, in accordance with the rules laid down for the acceptance of inheritances up to the level of net assets (Article 769). The senator also had to apply to the competent Court of First Instance for the introduction of possession of the estate. The adjudication of possession could only take place after the potential heirs had been summoned three times, following the legal opinion of the Government prosecutor.48 Procedural issues concerning the sealing of inheritances by justices of the peace were also regulated in the Code of Civil Procedure. This was primarily dealt with by the provisions of Articles 907â925 of said procedure. The above-mentioned provisions gave rise to numerous doubts, and perhaps they were not applied in accordance with the letter of the law, in any case, in 1820, the Court of Appeal, through the Senate, ordered their contents to be recalled to commune heads and their deputies.49
The number of proceedings for the declaration of inheritance by the Public Treasury was quite considerable in the Free City of Cracow. By way of example, in the period between 1 June 1822 and 30 May 1823 alone, 32 heirless estates were awarded to the Public Treasury. In the reporting period 1824/25, this number rose to 53, consisting of âvarious things and cashâ. The correspondence of the Ruling Senate with the Accounts Office shows that the awarding of inheritances was done in compliance with the applicable procedural provisions.50
In view of the conceivable liability of the Public Treasury for the inheritance assets of private individuals, the Government had the intention of appointing a separate official to supervise the assets acquired in this way, and to deal with the acts of negotiation, based on the files of the Tribunal of First Instance. In doing so, he was to be authorised to collect from the court depository movable properties, cash and debentures that had not been submitted to the Mortgage Commission as not having been brought to the mortgage file (not entered). It may be added that the value of an heirless estate was often negligible. This is because the most frequent cases involved non-entered debentures. In order to limit the court costs charged to the estate, the appointed officials were therefore to summon the debtors to accept the debt, to secure it and to settle voluntarily and, in addition, to pay the outstanding commissions, within a five-year period, with the possibility of instalments.52 According to a list kept in the Senateâs Main Archives, some 365 heirless estates were adjudicated for the benefit of the Public Treasury between 1839 and 1853, of which, however, a large proportion was later returned to the heirs.53 It is not possible today to
Referring to archival sources, it can be stated that the adjudication of assets in favour of the Public Treasury did indeed take place as a result of a resolution of the Tribunal of the First Instance.55 This took place only after the expiry of the time limit set for the heirs in press notices.56 The collection of sums from the deposit and their payment to the General Cash Office was carried out by authorised officials from the office of the senator overseeing institute affairs and the care of minors, or from the Office of Treasury Affairs.57 The return of assets already granted to the Public Treasury was only possible after the applicants had demonstrated that they were âindeed successorsâ.58 Various documentation was used to establish the legal and factual status of the estates to be taken over by the Public Treasury, including âTables of the deed of sealingâ, which contain detailed data on the family status of the deceased, the assets left by them â movable and immovable â as well as the activities already carried out in relation to the estate (e.g. auctions held).59
It may be added that the adjudication in favour of the Public Treasury could concern only a small part of the succession estate, in view of the fact that the remainder was taken over by heirs: statutory or testamentary. This is demonstrated by the example of the estate of Marcin Krzyżanowski, who died in 1802, and whose entire estate, consisting of movable property and a town house at Grodzka Street No. 37, was acquired by his adult children, Tomasz Krzyżanowski and Elżbieta ChryÅciÅska, née Krzyżanowska. The case involved the sealing of the inheritance and negotiations at the magistrateâs office of the City of Cracow, followed by a judicial division of the inheritance. Each successor took the share falling to him, with only 98 zlotys 10 grosz left in the
8 The Protection of the Succession Rights of the Catholic Church
A special place in the application of succession law in the Free City of Cracow was occupied by cases concerning the clergy and institutes of the Catholic Church. Its privileged constitutional and material position and the still living traditions of Josephinism, were the basis for the modification of French succession law, guaranteeing both the protection of the public interest and the property interests of the Catholic Church itself. This found a legal basis in the constitutions of the Republic of Cracow, which recognised Roman Catholicism as the religion of the state.61 Also, the de facto position of the Catholic Church in the Free City fully justified granting it the position of primus inter pares among the Christian denominations.62 In Cracow, together with the District, 46 parishes were involved in pastoral activities, 13 of them in Cracow. The District had three deaneries (Czernichów, Bolechowice and Nowa góra) comprising 33 parishes. In total, the Catholic Church in the Republic of Cracow had about 70 churches. There were also very numerous monasteries, both male and female.63 As was the case in the period of the Duchy of Warsaw, contacts between the Government and the clergy were maintained through the General Consistory of the Diocese of Cracow, i.e. the so-called diocesan curia, and the Cracow Cathedral Chapter, i.e. an auxiliary organ of the Bishop of Cracow.64
The starting point for the modification of the succession provisions of the Code civil, which based the question of succession to and by clergy and
In doing so, a stipulation was introduced that relatives remaining âin a truly poor conditionâ, once confirmed by the Senate, could also request the share due to the poor (Article 2).69 This provision was applied in the case of the Uszewski siblings Bernard, Józef, Napoleon, Helena and Teodozja, the survivors of Wincenty and Barbara née Janowska. They applied to the Senate to be granted one-third of the âremainder of the pure estateâ of their uncle, Father Jacek Janowski, a share which, under ordinary circumstances, would have gone to the poor peopleâs fund. As the documents they submitted did indeed confirm the state of poverty, the Senate agreed to the passing of one-third of the estate to the nephews and nieces of the late priest.70 It should be pointed
Closely related to the above regulation was the 1819 Act for the protection of estates left by priests who had been benefice holders.72 Its purpose was to safeguard âthe entire funds of religious institutesâ. This exposure to loss occurred when the estate of a deceased benefice-holder was taken over by heirs who refused to compensate for the damage caused by the testator to the fund property. The remedies consisted of several solutions. First, it was to be mandatory to seal the succession property, which, according to Article 907 of the Civil Procedure Code, belonged to a justice of the peace or his deputy. This act was to be attended by the commune head, as a representative of the local administration, the local dean (i.e. the clergyman in charge of the deanery, i.e. a unit of the ecclesiastical administrative division) and a collator (i.e. the person exercising the âright of collationâ with respect to the parish). Not infrequently the latter was the founder of the local church.
All of them were to ensure that the assets constituting the instituteâs property were nevertheless excluded from the sealing (the data from the churchâs fundi instructi inventories were a source of information in this regard). A further act was the drawing up of the inventory by a notary (designated by the Tribunal of First Instance). He summoned the commune head, the dean and the collator to participate, who were to compare the current state of the estate with the inventory drawn up when the deceased benefice-holder became the parish priest, and then determine the extent of any damage, which was to be assessed by experts; any claims to the estate were to be reported in the inventory. Civil status records and church records were to be handed over to an administrator appointed âin spiritualibusâ by the ecclesiastical authorities. There was also a rule that the inheritance of a deceased benefice-holder could only be taken over by the heirs after obtaining a court award. This could take place no sooner than after the heirs had produced a certificate issued by the
A good illustration of the implementation of the above regulations is the case of the estate of Father Sebastian Czochron, a parish priest in Luborzyca, who died in 1819.74 The fund of the institute, i.e. the Luborzyca parish, was represented by legal assessor Adam Ekielski, suing Jadwiga Nowakiewiczowa as Father Czochronâs heir. After his death, the General Consistory of the Diocese of Cracow appointed a civil-ecclesiastical commission, which found a loss in the fundi instructi inventory, in the amount of 2,627 Polish zlotys, six grosz, as well as the parish priestâs tax arrears. After reviewing the opinion of the Government prosecutor, the Court of Appeal held that the minutes of the commission could not be evidence in the case, as it had been administratively appointed. In addition, Father Czochronâs heirs were not called to participate in its work. Thus, it approved the Tribunalâs decision, which gave space to an expertsâ report, and ordered an assessment of the parish property. As Luborzyca was located in the Kingdom of Poland, it also summoned the Civil Tribunal of the Cracow Voivodship there for legal assistance. The key issue in the case was to establish whether the damage found had been caused by the parish priestâs negligence or was the natural result of the passage of time.75
The case of Father Franciszek Flaszkiewicz, a parish priest in Chrzanów, involved doubts about the inventories, according to which the current state of the parish estate should be compared with that which had been taken over by the deceased parish priest. An estimate of the claims of the parish fund to the estate of the deceased priest was also made by a civil-ecclesiastical commission.76 According to the Tribunal, the inventories from 1800â01, when Father
Of the provisions of the nc that were frequently applied in the practice of the authorities of the Republic of Cracow, Articles 910 and 937 of the nc, concerning the approval of donations and bequests to ecclesiastical institutes, should certainly also be mentioned. An example of the application of the former82 was the Senateâs approval of the bequests of Father Jan Dzianotty, a Cracow canon and parish priest of St Anneâs Church, who included in his will bequests of 100â200 zlotys to several Cracow monasteries. Their announcement âthrough
What was exceptional, however, was the case of Father Jacek Janowski, vice-chancellor and secretary of the Cracow Cathedral Chapter, who deposited 10,000 Polish zlotys in the coffers of the Brotherhood of Mercy for a âperpetual fundâ, with the reservation of drawing a percentage from it for the rest of his life. The capital was to be temporarily invested on landed estates, at 5 per cent. After the priestâs death, the percentage was to be paid to various institutes. In an open letter to Father Janowski, published in the Cracovian press, the Senate thanked him on behalf of âsuffering humanityâ for this âproof of indefatigable diligence in the fulfilment of pious deedsâ. As this âperpetual foundationâ was made in the form of a donation between the living, it nevertheless required official form in accordance with Article 931 of the nc for its validity.85 The act of donation was approved by the Senate under Article 910 of the nc. Subsequently, the provisions of Article 937 of the nc became the basis for the Government to authorise the Brotherhood of Mercy and the General Consistory to delegate commissioners from among themselves to accept donations on behalf of the recipients, in the presence of a legal assessor.86
A serious problem faced by the authorities of the Free City of Cracow was the failure of those making bequests, either by wills or inter vivos, to indicate the names of institutes for the benefit of âpoor peopleâs fundsâ, which gave rise
9 Conclusion
The presented analysis clearly shows that the courts of the Free City of Cracow applied the provisions of the Code civil in the vast majority of succession law cases. It was indeed treated by Cracowâs lawyers as the binding civil code. Only exceptionally, and evidently for reasons of justice, did the judges decide to depart from the letter of French law, directly applying the provisions of Austrian law previously in force in Cracow. On the other hand, however, it was not uncommon for them to interpret the norms of the nc inconsistently
Particularly noteworthy is also the fact that the strong position of the Catholic Church in Cracow â sanctified by centuries of tradition, as well as the considerable influence and authority of the local clergy â led the authorities of the Free City to introduce regulations, unknown in the post-revolutionary Code civil, that protected the inheritance rights of the Church in a special way. This consisted not only in the privileging of ecclesiastical institutes at the time of the partition of estates of clergy, but also in the creation of the possibility of claiming damages caused to parish property, also by profligate parish priests. The number of cases of this kind, settled using the procedural provisions of the nc, was very high in relation to the total number of succession cases settled in court. The same was true of the application of the provisions of the Code civil concerning the approval by public authorities of donations to religious institutes.
Inheritance cases adjudicated by the Faculty of Law of Jagiellonian University (1818â33)
No. |
Year |
Parties |
Subject matter of the case |
Judgment of the Tribunal of First Instance |
Judgment of the Court of Appeal |
Opinion of the Faculty of Law |
Judgment of the Court of Last Instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
1818 |
Bernard and Franciszka Michalczewscy v Marianna Stawowa |
Handing over the estate |
29.11.1817 |
14.05.1818 |
10.06.1818 no appeal |
There was not |
2 |
1819 |
WÅadysÅaw and Karol SoÅtyk v Józef Parys and Katarzyna Potocka |
Invalidity of the will |
24.05.1819 |
3.08.1819 |
11.10.1819 no appeal |
There was not |
3 |
1821 |
Heirs of Tekla Różycka v Legatess |
Invalidity of the will |
13.07.1818 |
9.11.1819 |
18.07.1821 no appeal |
There was not |
4 |
1822 |
Tekla Girtlerowa v Institutes |
Entry of inheritance claims in the mortgage |
28.01.1819 |
18.05.1819 |
13.04.1822 no appeal |
18.07.1822 |
5 |
1822 |
Antonina Schmidowa v Jan Raubach |
Validity of the contract in the event of death |
12.01.1822 |
8.05.1822 |
20.06.1822 there is an appeal |
30.11.1822 |
6 |
1822 |
Anastazy Roża v Agnieszka Styrio |
Partition of the estate |
7.07.1821 |
12.03.1822 |
4.07.1822 there is an appeal |
Not found |
7 |
1822 |
Father Adam Domaradzki v Heirs of Father Kajetan KulpiÅski |
Account of the execution of the will |
3.05.1822 |
23.07.1822 |
23.10.1822 there is an appeal |
3.07.1823 |
8 |
1822 |
Eufrozyna Sawicka v Heirs of Antoni Stadnicki |
Handing over the legacy |
8.06.1821 (in default) 9.11.1821 (standard procedure) |
26.03.1822 (in default) 15.05.1822 (standard procedure) |
28.10.1822 there is an appeal |
Not found |
9 |
1823 |
Katarzyna BanasiÅska v Kacper BanasiÅski |
Partition of the estate |
17.08.1822 (in default) 21.09.1822 (standard procedure) |
19.11.1822 |
22.02.1823 no appeal |
There was not |
10 |
1823 |
Institute of Franciscan Fathers v Mateusz Witkowski |
Payment of the legacy |
6.07.1822 |
5.03.1823 |
29.04.1823 no appeal |
There was not |
11 |
1824 |
Jan Brożek v Heirs of Antoni Brożek |
Invalidity of the will |
22.11.1822 (in default z) 21.03.1823 (standard procedure) |
14.01.1824 |
6.02.1824 no appeal |
There was not |
12 |
1824 |
Mateusz Konieczny v Heirs of Tomasz CzaÅczyÅski |
Interest on legacies |
19.07.1823 |
10.02.1824 |
22.04.1824 there is an appeal |
21.10.1824 |
13 |
1824 |
Leon PszczóÅkowski, curator of the absent heirs of Father Andrzej TrzciÅski v Institutes |
Partition of the estate and invalidity of the will |
17.01.1824 |
2.04.1824 |
22.04.1824 no appeal |
There was not |
14 |
1824 |
Regina Czuprynowa v Jadwiga Krawczykowa |
Handing over the estate |
19.07.1822 |
27.04.1824 |
10.07.1824 no appeal |
There was not |
15 |
1824 |
Heirs of Walenty LitwiÅski v Marianna Padlewska |
Payment of inheritance debts |
6.02.1824 |
2.06.1824 |
17.07.1824 there is an appeal |
26.10.1826 |
16 |
1824 |
Curator of the estate of Piotr Cerpondt v Creditors of the estate of Józef Petra |
Classification of the estate |
4.06.1824 |
1.09.1824 |
28.09.1824 no appeal |
There was not |
17 |
1824 |
RafaÅ Spira v Adam Kezewski |
Heirless inheritance |
2.07.1824 |
27.10.1824 |
27.11.1824 incompatible judgements |
Not found |
18 |
1825 |
Adam and Karolina Rogawscy v Heirs of Feliks Rogawski |
Invalidity of the will |
21.05.1824 |
2.12.1824 |
3.02.1825 no appeal |
There was not |
19 |
1825 |
Heirs of Aleksander Kronegold v Trade of Piotr Steinkeller |
Establishing mortgage on the estate |
30.07.1824 |
18.01.1825 |
7.02.1825 there is an appeal |
23.10.1828 |
20 |
1825 |
Heirs of Antoni Rechowicz v Count Józef Szembek |
Payment of inheritance debts |
3.02.1824 (in default) 15.05.1824 (standard procedure) |
22.12.1824 |
5.03.1825 no appeal |
There was not |
21 |
1825 |
Jacek and Franciszka GoÅemberscy v Heirs of Sebastian Dyktarski |
Payment of inheritance debts |
6.12.1823 (in default) 15.10.1824 (standard procedure) |
15.03.1825 |
11.05.1825 there is an appeal |
20.07.1825 |
22 |
1825 |
Jan and Marianna Wilk v Antoni and Katarzyna Sadowscy |
Invalidity of the will |
25.01.1825 |
26.05.1825 |
2.07.1825 Incompatible judgments |
27.10.1825 |
23 |
1825 |
Katarzyna Potocka v WÅadysÅaw and Karol SoÅtyk |
Payment of inheritance debts |
31.07.1824 |
1.02.1825 and 2.03.1825 |
7.11.1825 there is an appeal |
15.06.1826 |
24 |
1826 |
Tomasz WÄ sik v Heirs of Wojciech WÄ sik |
Partition of the estate |
8.04.1826 |
4.07.1826 |
22.07.1826 there is an appeal |
5.04.1827 |
25 |
1827 |
PaweÅ Jarok and Jadwiga Nowakowa v Mateusz Jarok |
Partition of the estate |
23.06.1827 |
16.10.1827 |
17.11.1827 no appeal |
There was not |
26 |
1827 |
StanisÅaw Sobierajski v Regina Matuszewska |
Handing over the legacy |
21.08.1826 (Court of the Peace) |
19.05.1826 (in default) 27.10.1827 (standard procedure) |
17.11.1827 there is an appeal |
13.03.1828 |
27 |
1828 |
Heirs of Józef Sawiczewski v Aniela Eminowiczowa |
Partition of the estate |
28.08.1827 |
17.01.1828 |
22.02.1828 there is an appeal |
13.03.1828 |
28 |
1828 |
Heirs of Józef Kubecki v Counts Hieronim and StanisÅaw Ankwicz |
Payment of inheritance debts |
16.12.1826 (in default) 19.06.1827 (standard procedure) |
4.02.1828 |
8.03.1828 there is an appeal |
19.02.1829 |
29 |
1828 |
Wincenty PiegÅowski v Barbara Marianna PiegÅowska |
Partition of the estate |
23.02.1828 |
24.06.1828 |
15.07.1828 no appeal |
There was not |
30 |
1828 |
WÅadysÅaw and Karol SoÅtyk v Katarzyna Potocka |
Restitutio in integrum |
5.02.1828 |
6.05.1828 (in default) 17.06.1828 (standard procedure) |
15.07.1828 no appeal |
There was not |
31 |
1828 |
Treasury of the Kingdom of Poland v Leon PszczóÅkowski curator of the heirless estate of Father Sebastian Sierakowski |
Payment of legacies and inheritance debts |
11.05.1827 |
26.03.1828 |
25.07.1828 there is an appeal |
Not found |
32 |
1828 |
Teresa Knotz v Maciej Knotz |
Abolishment of the legacy |
22.04.1828 |
22.07.1828 |
19.08.1828 no appeal |
There was not |
33 |
1828 |
Walenty Rosenthal v Father Wojciech Danielkiewicz |
Agreement over the estate |
1.03.1828 |
7.10.1828 |
10.11.1828 there is an appeal |
Not found |
34 |
1829 |
Heirs of Teresa GaszyÅska v Karol GaszyÅski |
Invalidity of the will |
18.10.1828 |
18.02.1829 |
5.06.1829 no appeal |
There was not |
35 |
1829 |
WÅadysÅaw and Karol SoÅtyk v Katarzyna Potocka |
Disclosure of the succession property |
13.01.1829 |
10.06.1829 |
6.07.1829 no appeal |
There was not |
36 |
1829 |
Szymon Zbroja v Ignacy and Mateusz UznaÅscy |
Partition of the estate |
31.07.1828 |
3.12.1828 |
6.07.1829 no appeal |
There was not |
37 |
1829 |
Creditors of the WacÅaw Rohlik estate v Szczepan and Rozalia Zawadzcy |
Partition of the estate by auction of immovable property |
1.06.1829 |
5.08.1829 |
16.09.1829 there is an appeal |
22.10.1829 |
38 |
1829 |
Franciszek Starowieyski v Cracow Chapter |
Payment of the legacy |
20.01.1829 |
9.09.1829 |
30.09.1829 no appeal |
There was not |
39 |
1830 |
Heirs of Filip Bonde v Heirs of Freyndla Bonde |
Partition of the estate |
25.11.1820 |
5.02.1830 |
6.04.1830 no appeal |
There was not |
40 |
1830 |
Aniela Eminowiczowa v Heirs of Józef Sawiczewski |
Partition of the estate |
26.06.1829 |
3.03.1830 |
10.05.1830 no appeal |
1.07.1830 |
41 |
1830 |
Ignacy Ulrych v Wincent Szpor, executor of the will of Ewa Ulrych |
Invalidity of the will |
27.10.1829 |
11.05.1830 |
11.06.1830 no appeal |
There was not |
42 |
1830 |
Tekla Frytzowa v Konstancja Kosicka and Marianna BuliÅska |
Partition of the estate |
5.02.1830 |
22.06.1830 |
19.07.1830 no appeal |
There was not |
43 |
1830 |
Tekla Girtlerowa v Heirs of Franciszek and Barbara Dziannotty |
Partition of the estate |
13.05.1830 |
28.09.1830 |
8.11.1830 no appeal |
There was not |
44 |
1830 |
Tekla Frytzowa v Konstancja Kosicka and Marianna BuliÅska |
Partition of the estate by the auction of immovable property |
5.08.1830 |
19.10.1830 |
8.11.1830 no appeal |
There was not |
45 |
1832 |
Emilia SoÅtykowa v Katarzyna Potocka |
Partition of the estate |
8.01.1831 |
22.02.1832 |
28.04.1832 no appeal |
7.05.1832 |
46 |
1832 |
Adam Ekielski, legal assessor of institutes v Józef KwaÅniewski, executor of the will of Józef MiÅkowski |
Recovery of legacies |
7.05.1831 |
14.01.1832 |
19.05.1832 no appeal |
There was not |
47 |
1832 |
Wiktoria Worytkiewiczowa v Regina and Franciszek Sikora |
Partition of the estate |
18.05.1830 |
11.07.1832 |
2.10.1832 no appeal |
There was not |
48 |
1833 |
Fund of Czernichów church v Creditors of the estate of Izydor TeresiÅski |
Payment of inheritance debts |
21.11.1832 |
8.03.1833 |
21.05.1833 no appeal |
There was not |
49 |
1833 |
Antoni WideÅski v Katarzyna WideÅska |
Partition of the estate |
21.10.1830 (in default) 8.10.1831 (standard procedure) |
10.07.1832 (in default) 23.07.1833 (standard procedure) |
12.09.1833 no appeal |
There was not |
Author of Chapters 8, Sections 1â6, 9 and Table 4.
Author of Chapters 8, Sections 7, 8 and 9.
The part of the inheritance not covered by the dispute in question was the rich mineralogical collection, which MichaÅ SoÅtyk bequeathed as a legacy to Jagiellonian University, which has kept it to the present day. For more, see ÅmiaÅowski 2000.
See below, pp. 232 and 239â241.
See above, Chapter 1 and Dziadzio 2020d, 198, and below, Table 4.
Judgment of Tribunal of First Instance of 26 April 1828, ank, 29/200/2126 (Tryb 324), 1335â1337, 1351â1362; judgment of the Court of Appeal of 17 February 1829, ank, 29/200/1733 (wm 260), 669â672.
See below, pp. 233â234.
See Michalik 2022, 13â36.
Judgment of the Tribunal of First Instance of 15 June 1818, ank, 29/200/1966 (Tryb 163), 683â685; judgment of the Court of Appeal of 2 December 1818, ank, 29/200/1713 (wm 240), 1069â1071; judgment of the Court of Last Instance of 4 May 1819, ank, 29/200/1694 (wm 221), No. 11; judgment of the Court of Appeal of 24 November 1819, ank, 29/200/1715 (wm 242), 1073â1076; judgment of the Court of Last Instance of 16 March 1820, ank, 29/200/1695 (wm 222), No. 8.
Judgment of the Tribunal of First Instance of 30 November 1819, ank, 29/200/1970 (Tryb 167), 1089â1093; judgment of the Court of Appeal of 1 March 1820, ank, (wm 243), 367â369; judgment of the Tribunal of First Instance of 27 March 1821, ank, 29/200/2112 (Tryb 310), 823â829; judgment of the Court of Appeal of 25 June 1822, ank, 29/200/1718 (wm 245), 1245â1248; judgment of the Court of Last Instance of 22 May 1823, ank, 29/200/1659 (wm 186), 329â330.
On the origins of the system of reserve, see Peguera Poch 2009.
Judgment of the Tribunal of First Instance of 21 July 1820, ank, 29/200/1972 (Tryb 169), 993â995; judgment of the Court of Appeal of 6 September 1820, ank, 29/200/1717 (wm 244), 431â433.
Judgment of the Tribunal of First Instance of 8 October 1825, ank, 29/200/1988 (Tryb 185), 415â422; judgment of the Court of Appeal of 28 June 1826, ank, 29/200/1729 (wm 256), 355â358.
Judgment of the Tribunal of First Instance of 20 May 1831, ank, 29/200/2132 (Tryb 330), 1727â1733; judgment of the Court of Appeal of 11 November 1831, ank, 29/200/1743 (wm 270), 535â541.
ank, 29/200/1743 (wm 270), 535â546.
Ibidem, 547â550.
ank, 29/200/1743 (wm 270), 535â541.
KapuÅciÅski ed. 1869, 9â10. See also Bieda, WiÅniewska-Jóźwiak 2014, 113â115.
See Michalik 2021, 307â330.
Judgment of the Tribunal of First Instance of 28 August 1827, ank, 29/200/1993 (Tryb 190), 1975â1986; judgment of the Court of Appeal of 17 January 1828, ank, 29/200/1730 (wm 257), 141â148; opinion of the Faculty of Law of Jagiellonian University of 22 February 1828, auj, wp i 58, 413â417; Dziadzio and Mataniak eds. 2022, 318â320; judgment of the Court of Last Instance of 13 March 1828, ank, 29/200/1665 (wm 192), 751â760.
See e.g. ank, 29/200/1715 (wm 242), 241 and ank, 29/200/1717 (wm 244), 439. This is evidenced above all by letters from lawyers in which they not infrequently refer to Roman law. By virtue of his academic specialisation, the protagonist of this practice was Professor of Roman law Feliks SÅotwiÅski who, when arguing in favour of his client, would casually remind the court of the Roman law principles of the institution in question.
See § 331 and 346, part ii of the West Galician Code.
The subject of the presented research did not include the establishment of a statistical study of inheritance as a socio-legal phenomenon, so at present it is impossible to say to what extent the conclusions derived from the courtsâ case law alone reflect the actual socio-legal processes related to inheritance. For example, it is still not known what percentage of Cracowâs testators made a will and what percentage of these wills were subsequently the subject of litigation between heirs.
See e.g. ank, 29/200/1993 (Tryb 190), 1977 and ank, 29/200/1730 (wm 257), 143.
Although it also correctly stated that both courts had violated Articles 1007 and 1008 of the Code civil, that could not, however, have the effect of depriving Agnieszka Styrio of her inheritance when the courts had found the will to be valid. Perhaps for this reason, the plaintiffs did not ultimately file an appeal with the Court of Last Instance.
Judgment of the Tribunal of First Instance of 7 July 1821, ank, 29/200/1975 (Tryb 172), 789â791; judgment of the Court of Appeal of 7 May 1822, ank, 29/200/1720, (wm 247), 717â718; opinion of the Faculty of Law of the Jagiellonian University of 4 July 1822, auj, wp i 57, 104â106; Dziadzio and Mataniak eds. 2022, 91â92.
For more, see Michalik 2021, 325â327.
Judgment of Tribunal of First Instance of 15 October 1824, ank, 29/200/1985 (Tryb 182), 614â632; judgment of the Court of Appeal of 15 March 1825, ank, 29/200/1715 (wm 242), 563â565; opinion of the Faculty of Law of Jagiellonian University of 11 May 1825, auj, wp i 58, 37â39; Dziadzio and Mataniak eds. 2022, 180â181; judgment of the Court of Last Instance of 20 July 1825, ank, 29/200/1700 (wm 227), No. 12.
Judgment of the Tribunal of First Instance of 19 June 1827, ank, 29/200/1993 (Tryb 190), 505â513; judgment of the Court of Appeal of 4 February 1828, ank, 29/200/1730 (wm 257), 257â261; opinion of the Faculty of Law of the Jagiellonian University of 8 March 1828, auj, wp i 58, 422â426; Dziadzio and Mataniak eds. 2022, 322â323; judgment of the Court of Last Instance of 19 February 1829, ank, 29/200/1665 (wm 192), 725â730.
This battle ended in 1832 with the final defeat of WÅadysÅaw and Karol SoÅtyk, who incidentally both died the year before, at the relatively young ages of 44 and 40.
Kielce, State Archives, Testament MichaÅa SoÅtyka, Akta notariusza Andrzeja Kossowicza, 1815, file No. 3, 205â211v.
See Dekret z 10 października 1810 r., dpkw, vol. 2, 84â96.
Judgement of the Tribunal of First Instance of 24 May 1819, ank, 29/200/1969 (Tryb 166), 35â40; judgment of the Court of Appeal of 3 August 1819, ank, 29/200/1715 (wm 242), 233â236; opinion of the Faculty of Law of Jagiellonian University of 11 October 1819, auj, wp i 57, 26â27; Dziadzio and Mataniak eds. 2022, 45â46.
Judgment of the Tribunal of First Instance of 31 July 1824, ank, 29/200/1984 (Tryb 181), 980â988; judgment of the Court of Appeal of 1 February and 2 March 1825, ank, 29/200/1725 (wm 252), 231â236; opinion of the Faculty of Law of Jagiellonian University of 7 November 1825, auj, wp i 58, 97â101; Dziadzio and Mataniak eds. 2022, 208â210; judgment of the Court of Last Instance of 15 June 1826, ank, 29/200/1663 (wm 190), 25â29.
See Dekret z 10 października 1810 r., dpkw, vol. 2, 84â96.
Judgment of the Tribunal of First Instance of 28 October 1820, ank, 29/200/1973 (Tryb 170), 707â710.
See below, Chapter 8, Section 8.
ank, 29/200/1718 (wm 245), 535â541.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal of 14 March 1821, ank, 29/200/1718 (wm 245), 531â533.
The belief that the State is the last and necessary successor of a natural person was already present in Roman law. See Blicharz 2016, 263â264.
DÄ bkowski 1922, 220.
For more about Article 713 of the nc, see SokoÅowski 2016, 64â67.
In the original: Imperial prosecutor (Article 770).
Proclamation of the Ruling Senate of 14 June 1820 No. 1647 dgs, DRz. WMK, No. 40 of 21 October 1820, 161â168; ibidem, No. 41 of 28 October 1820, 169â172. They concerned the provisions of Articles 907â944 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Adjudication of ownership was made by the Tribunal of the First Instance, by way of judgments, at the request of the public prosecutor at this court, after the successorsâ summonses had been declared ineffective (âthey did not appear despite the required announcementsâ), with reference to the provisions of Articles 768 and 770 of the nc, etc. Cash and other movable property previously deposited at the Deposit Office were collected by the Government assessor or cashier and brought to the Governmentâs General Cash Office.
Since, in the Senateâs view, this was certainly not the case with regard to the benefits collected by the Government before a court judgment awarding the inheritance to the Public Treasury was made, it was necessary to classify them as special treasury capital for remedies, with the obligation to record them in a separate register.
Letter from the Ruling Senate to the Senator overseeing institute affairs and the care of minors, the Accounts Office, the Public Revenue Department, the General Treasury and the Tribunal of the First Instance, 7 June 1826, ank, 29/200/1289 (wm 355), 5â10, 51.
Letter from the Administrative Council to the Tribunal of First Instance and the Governorate Commission of 25 May 1853, ank, 29/200/253 (wmk v-54A), 35â36; Konsygnacja Akt byÅego Senatu RzÄ dzÄ cego odnoszÄ cych siÄ do mass bezdziedzicznych Skarbowi Publicznemu przez byÅy TrybunaÅ Krakowski przyznanych of 5 January 1853, ibidem, 7â32.
Letter from the Ruling Senate to the Tribunal of 3 July 1843, ank, 29/200/2300 (Tryb 103), 2907â2908. The reports have not survived to the present day.
The case of MikoÅaj Jurkowskiâs estate: the Tribunalâs resolution of 28 December 1843, ank, 29/200/2333 (Tryb 136), 13â14.
The case of the estate of Jacek and Jadwiga Czech: Letter from the Tribunal to the Ruling Senate of 25 January 1841, ank, 29/200/2334 (Tryb 137), 437.
The case of the estate of Kazimierz PaÅka and Antoni Strzelbicki: Letter from the Ruling Senate to the senator overseeing institute affairs and the care of minors and the Tribunal, 20 October 1840, ank, 29/200/2333 (Tryb 136), 45.
A certificate could be issued, for example, by a family council, in the case of minors. The case of the successors of Salomea Majewska née Haller: Letter from the Ruling Senate to Wincenty Wolff, attorney for the Majewski family of 3 December 1840, ank, 29/200/2333 (Tryb 136), 871.
Letter from the Ruling Senate to the Tribunal of 13 September 1844, ank, 29/200/2301 (Tryb 104), no pagination.
Letter from the Tribunal to the Ruling Senate of 20 July 1840, ank, 29/200/2333 (Tryb 136), 215; Stan masy Åp. Marcina Krzyżanowskiego, ibidem, 217; copy of the rescript of the Ruling Senate of 7 August 1840, ibidem, 219â220.
âThe Catholic, Apostolic and Roman religion is maintained as the national religionâ: Article 1 of the 1815 Constitution.
Whose followers were equal in political and civil rights: Articles 2 and 3 of the 1815 Constitution.
Urban 2016, 123â141.
Numerous tasks were also performed by ecclesiastical janitors, appointed at parishes as management and consultative bodies. For more, see Mataniak 2017a, 123â149; Mataniak 2019a, 321â323.
The Act of 2 January 1821, PostÄpowanie z majÄ tkiem po zmarÅych xx. bez testamentu pozostaÅym, promulgated by the letter of the Ruling Senate of 12 January 1821, No. 110 dgs, DRRz.WMK of 1821 (hereinafter: Act of 1821).
The Charitable Society financed, inter alia, the stay of people in the Shelter Home for the Poor. The preamble also referred to the financial difficulties of the parish hospitals in the district, where âpeasants commonly sought shelter because of their age or infirmityâ.
Act of 1821.
Ibidem. The remainder of the Act set out the rules for calculating the shares for individual heirs (Articles 3â5).
Letter from the Governing Senate to the Accounts Office of 10 October 1835, ank, 29/200/1291 (wm 357), 529â530. The Senate also exempted the Uszewski family from the stamp duty on inheritances.
See the cases of the successors of: Father Kasper MaÅecki, Judgment of the Court of Appeal of 4 November 1832, ank, 29/200/1748 (wm 275), 29â33; Father Mateusz Dubiecki, Judgment of the Court of Appeal of 1 March 1836, ank, 29/200/1756 (wm 283), 829â832; Father Florian Kudrewicz, Judgment of the Court of Appeal of 29 April 1836, ibidem, 1415â1418, 1421â1426.
The Act of 27 December 1819, O zabezpieczeniu funduszów po zmarÅych Beneficjantach, promulgated by the letter of the Ruling Senate of 31 December 1819, No. 4557 dgs, DRRz.WMK of 1820.
Ibidem, Articles 1â6. As verification of the estate and liquidation of damages tended to take a long time, a prohibition on claiming an inheritance before three months from the date of death of a benefice-holder was introduced.
Sebastian Czochron (1750â1819). He was in 1787 a professor of the Moral College of the Crown Main School, then in 1790â1803/04 a professor at the Department of Canonical Procedure of the Crown Main School. He was a supporter of the school of natural law, a representative of the humanitarian trend in criminal law, and a parish priest in Luborzyca from 1803. Å»ukowski 2014, 71â72.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal of 26 February 1828, ank, 29/200/1730 (wm 257), 589â593; UciÄ Å¼liwoÅci ze strony funduszu KoÅcioÅa Farnego w Luborzycy zaÅożonego, ibidem, 597â603. The assessor argued that Father Czochron was obliged to do the main work resulting from being a parish priest, which entailed a corresponding salary, and ancillary work, which he was alleged to have neglected.
The estimate covered not only the church, presbytery and belfry, but also the cemetery wall and, of the movable property, also the organ and chasubles, a clock and even an oil painting and an iron for baking wafers. Odpowiedź ze strony funduszu KoÅcioÅa Jaworznickiego i plebanii przeciwko sukcesorom x. Flaszkiewicza, ank, 29/200/1738 (wm 265), 479â482.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal of 7 July 1830, ank, 29/200/1738 (wm 265), 471â477; Odpowiedź sukcesorów x. Flaszkiewicza, ibidem, 483. It is worth mentioning here that the rules for the contribution of parish priests to the renovation of churches and presbytery buildings, which, incidentally, were referred to by the Court of Appeal, were defined in detail first by a decree of the Court Commission of 1800, and then by legal acts of 13 September 1833 and 1 March 1843 on the functioning of church caretakers. For more, see Mataniak 2017a, 123â124, 127â134. The 1833 Act took into account the provisions of the Act on heirless estates from deceased benefice-holders. These were to finance (to the extent of one-third) the permanent parish funds. Where a parish priest had disposed of property by will prior to his death, a quarter part of it â movable and immovable property â was due to the parish church as a so-called âmandatory partâ; this did not apply only to property acquired by inheritance.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal of 8 March 1833, ank, 29/200/1749 (wm 276), 93â96; UciÄ Å¼liwoÅci ze strony funduszu koÅcioÅa Czernichowskiego przeciwko Wierzycielom Åp. x. Izydora TeresiÅskiego, ibidem, 97â100.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal of 7 July 1835, ank, 29/200/1742 (wm 269), 105â109.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal of 14 May 1833, ank, 29/200/1749 (wm 276), 661â663.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal of 29 May 1833, ank, 29/200/1749 (wm 276), 905â908.
Article 910: âDispositions during life or by will, for the benefit of hospitals, of the poor of a commune, or of establishments of public utility, shall not take effect, except so far as they shall be authorised by an ordinance of the governmentâ.
Letter from the Ruling Senate to the Accounts Office of 24 September 1835, ank, 29/200/1291 (wm 357), 357â358. The beneficiaries were the Capuchin, Dominican, Augustinian and Bernardine monasteries, the congregation of vicars at St Anneâs and Cathedral (Castle) churches, as well as the Brotherhood of Mercy; the information was also sent to the Court of Third Instance and the General Consistory, who was to inform the Cracovian clergy, as well as to the Brotherhood of Mercy and the St Catherineâs Church restoration committee.
Letter from the Ruling Senate to the Accounts Office of 24 September 1835, ank, 29/200/1291 (wm 357), 361. As the bequest of 500 zlotys to the Brotherhood of Mercy was made on 14 June 1823 in Radom, information about this fact was provided by the General Counsel of the Kingdom of Poland in the letter to the Senate of 20 May 1833.
Article 931 of the nc: âAll acts importing donation during life shall be passed before notaries, in the ordinary form of contracts; and a minute thereof shall be left, on pain of nullityâ.
Letter of Ruling Senate to Accounting Office of 24 February 1835, ank, 29/200/1291 (wm 357), 411â412. Article 937 of the nc: âDonations made for the benefit of hospitals, for the poor of a commune, or for establishments of public utility, shall be accepted by the managers of such communes or establishments, having been thereto duly authorisedâ.
Act of 2 January 1821, O zapisach dla ubogich, promulgated by the letter of the Ruling Senate of 8 January 821, No. 79 dgs, DRRz.WMK of 1821. In general, bequests could be made to the following institutes: Archconfraternity of Charity and Pious Bank, St Lazarus Hospital, the Congregation of the Brothers Hospitallers of Saint John of God (âBrothers of Charityâ) and the Charitable Society. It was obligatory to indicate the institute or âspecies of the poorâ cared for by one of the indicated institutions, otherwise it was assumed to be the Shelter Home for the Poor, administered by the Charitable Society; similarly, when the term âbeggarsâ was used (Articles 2â3).
Act of 22 December 1817, Odkazanie sumy pozostaÅej po x. Bernardzie Bittnerze przypadÅej Skarbowi Publicznemu na rzecz zakÅadu dla sposobienia do życia moralnego dzieci osób pozostajÄ cych w Domu Ogólnego Schronienia, promulgated by the letter of the Ruling Senate of 5 January 1818 No. 53 dgs, DRRz.WMK of 1818. The funds due to the Public Treasury were given by the Government for the benefit of the infants in the care of the Shelter Home for the Poor. They were to be secured by mortgage on landed estates in the Free City of Cracow, charging 5 per cent per annum.
Resolution of the Ruling Senate of 4 April 1826 No. 1235 dgs, ank, 29/200/1292 (wm 358), 883â885. The parties were called upon by the First Instance Tribunal to divide the property according to the partition of the estate, as determined by the settlement reached before the Senate. The beneficiaries were: the St Lazarus Hospital, the stipend fund of the poor students of Jagiellonian University, the Brotherhood of Mercy, the Hospital of the Brothers of St John of God, Józef Marxen and the relatives of Father TrzciÅski.