|Sažetak (hrvatski)|| |
Korištenjem zadarskih sudskih zapisnika iz druge polovice 14. stoljeća autor mikrohistorijskom analizom razmatra sudske sporove oko mirazne imovine. Sudski zapisnici pokazuju da se nisu svi ugovorno regulirani privatno-pravni odnosi, pa tako ni oni u vezi s mirazima, uspješno razvijali ili završavali mirno, već da su se ovisno o okolnostima svakoga pojedinog slučaja javljali određeni problemi koje je nadležni sud onda pokušavao riješiti. Razmatranjem rečenih sudskih zapisnika daju se odgovori na pitanja tko je i protiv koga pokretao sudske sporove u vezi s miraznom imovinom, zbog čega se ti sporovi javljaju, s kakvim su se problemima procesne stranke susretale u sudskom postupku, jesu li pojedinci traženjem pomoći od suda uspijevali namiriti svoje tražbine i na koje načine.
|Sažetak (engleski)|| |
Using court records from the second half of the fourteenth century, combined with the approach of micro-history, the author analyses litigations over dowries in Zadar. Court records show that not all contract-regulated private relations, including those related to dowries, ended in the peaceful fulfilment of contractual obligations. Depending on the circumstances of each particular case, certain problems might arise, which were then addressed by the appropriate town’s magistrate. The analysis of the said court records provides answers to the following questions: who initiated disputes over dowries and against whom, why they occurred, what the real problems that litigants faced during judicial proceedings were, whether they managed to settle their claims by seeking assistance from the court, and if so, in what ways.
On a general level, court records indicate two main reasons for the initiation of litigations in connection to dowries. First and most frequently, court disputes over dowries were conducted when a husband or his testamentary-appointed executors and heirs would not return a dowry to a woman or her children after the death of a spouse. Secondly, disputes over dowries arose when a girl’s father or some other relatives would not pay the entire amount of the dowry to her husband by the agreed deadline. Seeking justice from the court, however, was not an easy venture and did not guarantee success from the start. Judicial proceedings offered opportunities for many delays that could significantly prolong them, and the conclusion of litigation could also mean starting another process when the claim could not be settled.
When judicial proceedings ended successfully for the plaintiff, the initial conditions for the enforcement of sentences were achieved only with the expiration of ten days for appeals. The procedure then required the obtaining of consent from the rectors of Zadar for the execution of the sentence, after which it was necessary to trace adequate assets of the defendant, suitable for disposal. After the successful execution of matters concerning any given property, the creditor had an obligation to offer its repurchase to the defendant, and only when he would not accept it within three days could the creditor initiate auction and sell the disposed assets. It should be noted, however, that even at this stage, certain problems could occur, and all of them meant further delays and postponed the actual settlement. Only after the successful completion of all the aforementioned actions, i.e. the successful completion of judicial proceedings that resulted in a valid sentence, the successful execution of that sentence and selling of the disposed assets at auction, could one reach the final settlement.