Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-06T13:14:56.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Civil Cassation Department of the Senate as an Instrument of Progressive Reform in Post-Emancipation Russia: The Case of Property and Inheritance Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

William G. Wagner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Both Western and, sometimes more grudgingly, Soviet historians have praised certain aspects of the Russian judicial reforms of 1864 and their effects. Judicial transformation of the law proved to be an important means both of adapting traditional law to the social and economic changes occurring in Russia after the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 and of fostering and facilitating further change. Moreover, the effects and implications of some of the reforms of civil law introduced by the new courts inevitably drew these institutions into many of the political controversies besetting Russia at this time. These issues surprisingly, however, have attracted little scholarly attention.

This paper seeks to assess the significance of the new courts’ reforming activities and to relate these activities to broader social and political issues by examining the development of property and inheritance law by the Civil Cassation Department of the Senate. As the highest court of appeal for civil actions in the new judicial structure, the Civil Cassation Department rendered definitive interpretations of civil law and exercised tremendous influence over the decisions of lower courts. An examination of its practice therefore would not only reveal the policy of the highest court in the land, but would also provide a fairly accurate picture of the way particular civil laws were interpreted and enforced throughout the empire. While the Civil Cassation Department affected all areas of civil law more or less extensively, a study of its development of property and inheritance law would be especially useful in assessing the extent, nature, and significance of its reformist activity both because of the crucial, multifarious functions of these branches of law in any society and because of particular controversies surrounding them in Russia.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , Spring 1983 , pp. 36 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Brief, general surveys may be found in Vas'kovskii, E. V., “Pravotvorcheskaia deiatel'nost' novykh sudov v sfere protsessa i prava grazhdanskago,” in Sudebnye ustavy 10 noiabria 1864 g. za 50 let, 2 vols. (Petrograd, 1914), 2:375–413 Google Scholar; E. N. Berendts, “Vliianie sudebnoi reformy 1864 g. na gosudarstvennyi i obshchestvennyi byt v Rossii,” ibid., 2:746-52; Gessen, I. V., Sudebnaia reforma (St. Petersburg, 1905), chap. 8Google Scholar; A. E. Nol'de, “Pravotvorcheskaia deiatel'nost’ Pravitel'stvuiushchago Senata v oblasti grazhdanskago prava,” in Istoriia Pravitel'stvuiushchago Senata za dvesti let, 1711-1911 gg., 5 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1911), 4:421^0; V. S. Mal'chenko, “Obshchii ocherk dvizheniia grazhdansko-protsessual'nago zakonodatel'stva posle 1864 goda,” in Sudebnaia reforma, ed. N. V. Davydov and N. N. Polianskii, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1915), 2:70-80; A. M. Guliaev, “Obshchiia ucheniia sistemy grazhdanskago prava v praktike Grazhdanskago Kassatsionnago Departmenta Pravitel'stvuiushchago Senata za 50 let,” Zhurnal Ministerstva lustitsii (hereafter Zh. M. Iu.), 1914, no. 9, pp. 333-409.

2. For examples of this, see Solov'ev, Iu. B., Samoderzhavie i dvorianstvo v kontse XIX veka (Leningrad, 1973), pp. 201–16, 316–26Google Scholar; Korelin, A. P., Dvorianstvo v poreformennoi Rossii 1861- 1904 gg. (Moscow, 1979), pp. 261–84 Google Scholar; Wagner, W. G., “Legislative Reform of Inheritance in Russia, 1861-1914,” in Russian Law. Historical and Political Perspectives, ed. W. E. Butler (Leyden, 1977), pp. 143–76 Google Scholar.

3. On the courts’ abilities in this respect, under both common and civilian law systems, see Hartwell, R. M., “Two Services: Education and Law,” in his The Industrial Revolution and Economic Growth (London, 1971), pp. 244–61 Google Scholar; Kahn-Freund, O., introduction to K. Renner, The Institutions of Private Law and their Social Functions (London, 1949)Google Scholar; W., Friedmann, Law in a Changing Society, abrid. ed. (London, 1964), pp. 35–67 Google Scholar; R., Posner, Economic Analysis of Law (Boston, 1972)Google Scholar, and the reviews of this by A. Leff and J. Buchanan in Virginia Law Review, 60 (1974): 451-92. The literature on the relationship between property rights and economic activity and growth is vast and growing rapidly. A useful survey of recent trends and literature may be found in Furubotn, A. E. and Pejovich, A., “Property Rights and Economic Theory: A Survey of Recent Literature,” Journal of Economic Literature, 10 (1972): 1137–62Google Scholar.

4. Settled land, that is, land inhabited or worked by serfs, also was a central institution of property law at this time, but gradually lost significance after the emancipation. As will be described below, its counterpart, unsettled land, retained significance in one important instance.

5. Under Russian law, the clan was a kinship group consisting of all persons descending from and linked by blood relationship to a common male head of the clan (rodonachal'nik). Membership was transmitted through both males and females. ﹛Svod zakonov rossiiskoi imperii [hereafter SZ], 1857 ed., vol. 10, pt. 1, arts. 196-210, 1111-18, 1120; see also Zagorovskii, A. I., Kurs semeinago prava, 2nd ed. [Odessa, 1909])Google Scholar. Statutory property and inheritance law was contained in SZ, 1857 and later eds., vol. 10, pt. 1, arts. 383-1537, although relevant articles also may be found in vols. 9, 10 pt. 2,11, and 12. There is a large amount of literature on this subject. Useful, though not always accurate, summaries of the law, some from a historical perspective, are Pobedonostsev, K. P., Kurs grazhdanskago prava, 2nd ed. (St. Petersburg, 1896)Google Scholar; Annenkov, K. N., Sistema grazhdanskago prava, 2nd ed. (St. Petersburg, 1912)Google Scholar; Nevolin, K. A., Polnoe sobranie sochinenii K A. Nevolina (St. Petersburg, 1857, 1858), vols. 3–5 Google Scholar; Meier, D. I., Russkoe grazhdanskoe pravo, 5th ed. (Moscow, 1873)Google Scholar; Shershenevich, G. F., Uchebnik russkago grazhdanskago prava (St. Petersburg, 1907 Google Scholar); Pakhman, S. V., Istoriia kodifikatsii grazhdanskago prava (St. Petersburg, 1876 Google Scholar); K. D. Kavelin, “Pravo nasledovaniia. Ocherki iuridicheskikh otnoshenii, voznikaiushchikh iz nasledovaniia imushchestva,“ and “Prava semeistvennyia. Ocherki iuridicheskikh otnoshenii, voznikaiushchikh iz semeinago soiuza,” both in vol. 4 of his Sobranie sochinenii (St. Petersburg, 1904); Vladimirskii-Budanov, M. F., Obzor istorii russkago prava, 6th ed. (St. Petersburg, 1909)Google Scholar; I. E. Il'iashenko, “Institut rodovogo imushchestva s tochki zreniia budushchago grazhdanskago ulozheniia,“ Zh. M. Iu., 1900, nos. 2-4; idem, “O prave nasledovaniia suprugov s tochki zreniia budushchago grazhdanskago ulozheniia,” Vestnik prava, 1902, no. 4-5; P. I. Beliaev, “Istoricheskiia osnovy i iuridicheskaia priroda sovremennago russkago zaveshchaniia,” Zh. M. Iu., 1903, nos. 5-6; N. N. Tovstoles, “Svoboda zaveshchatel'noi voli po russkomu pravu v razlichnye periody ego razvitiia,“ ibid., 1902, no. 8; idem, “Iuridicheskoe polozhenie zhenshchiny pri otkrytii nasledstva po russkomu zakonodatel'stvu,” ibid., 1910, no. 1; idem, “Nasledovanie suprugov po russkomu pravu, v sviazi s proektom grazhdanskago ulozheniia,” ibid., 1911, no. 5; idem, “Ukaznaia chast’ supruga v imushchestve svekra (testia),” ibid., 1914, no. 5.

6. Pobedonostsev, Kurs, vol. 1, pp. 143, 149, vol. 2, pp. 565, 570-71, 575-76; Antonovich, A. la., “Chrezpolosnoe zemlevladenie, ego proiskhozhdenie i khoziaistvennoe znachenie,” Sel'skoe khoziaistvo i lesovodstvo, 1878 Google Scholar, chast’ 127 (March), pp. 301-19; idem, “Ekonomiko-iuridicheskiia osnovaniia razverstaniia cherezpolosnykh zemel',” ibid., 1878, chast’ 128 (May), pp. 55-75; stepei, Zhitel' Saratovskikh, O cherezpolosnykh vladeniiakh. Pis'mo k Al. St. Khomiakovu, 2nd ed. (Moscow, 1836)Google Scholar; idem, Razgovor o cherezpolosnosti. 1-e pribavlenie ko 2-mu izdaniiu o cherezpolosnykh vladeniiakh. Pis'ma k A. S. Khomiakovu (Moscow, 1837); A. S., Khomiakov, “O cherezpolosnom vladenii” Moskovskii nabliudateV, 1835 Google Scholar, chast’ 1, pp. 792-802; Haxthausen, A. von, Studies on the Interior of Russia, ed. S. F. Starr (Chicago, 1972), pp. 250–52, 257Google Scholar; A. N. Strukov, “Otvet na otkrytyi vopros: pochemu ne vsiakoe blagopriobretennoe imenie mozhet byt’ obrashcheno v maiorat i ne vedet li takoe zapreshchenie k razdrobleniiu imenii po bol'shei chasti vrednomu i v otnoshenii razvitiia sel'skago khoziaistva i dlia samikh naslednikov?” Gazeta dlia sel'skikh khoziaev, 1861, no. 7 (August 16), pp. 102-105; Sh., “Dvorianstvo v Rossii,” Vestnik Evropy, 1887, bk. 3, pp. 249, 262, 264, 274-75; Karnovich, E. P., Zamechatel'nyia bogatstva chastnykh lits v Rossii. Ekonomi chesko- istoricheskoe izsledovanie (St. Petersburg, 1874), pp. 52–53 Google Scholar. See also M., Confino, Systemes agraires et progris agricole. L'assolement triennal en Russie aux XVIH-XIX siicles (Paris, 1969), pp. 104–106 Google Scholar; J., Blum, Lord and Peasant in Russia from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century (Princeton, 1961), pp. 376–79 Google Scholar; W. R., Augustine, “Notes Toward a Portrait of the Eighteenth Century Russian Nobility” Canadian Slavic Studies, 4 (1970): 395–96Google Scholar. See also the references to the nakazy in Sbornik imperatorskago russkago istoricheskago obshchestva (hereafter SIRIO) in note 9.

7. In addition to the references in notes 6 and 9, see Liubavskii, A, “Unichtozhenie razlichiia mezhdu imushchestvami rodovymi i blagopriobretennymi,” in Iuridicheskiia monografii i izsledovaniia, 4 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1867-1878), 3:34–35 Google Scholar; Speranskiy, M. “O rodovykh imeniiakh,” Arkhiv istoricheskikh i prakticheskikh svedenii, otnosiashchikhsia do Rossii, izdavaemyi Nikolaem Kalachovym, 1859, bk. 5, pp. 62–70Google Scholar; Wallace, D. M., Russia on the Eve of War and Revolution, ed. C. E. Black (New York, 1961), pp. 113–14,156,159Google Scholar; Romanovich-Slavatinskii, A., Dvorianstvo v Rossii ot nachala XVIII veka do otmeny krepostnago prava (St. Petersburg, 1870; reprint ed., The Hague, 1968), pp. 25, 254-55, 509–10Google Scholar; Karnovich, Zamechatel'nyia bogatstva, chaps. 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10-13; Sh., “Dvorianstvo v Rossii,” bk. 3, pp. 249, 264-65, 274-75, bk. 4, pp. 531-71, bk. 5, pp. 186-210, bk. 6, pp. 421-27, 441-44; Haxthausen, Studies, pp. 214, 250-57; Grazhdanskoe ulozhenie. Proekt Vysochaishe uchrezhdennoi Redaktsionnoi Komissii po sostavleniiu grazhdanskago ulozheniia. Kniga chetvertaia. Nasledstvennoe pravo, s oViasneniiami (St. Petersburg, 1903), introduction;SIRIO, 93 (1894): 100, 308, 402; V. Polunin, Three Generations. Family Life in Russia, 1845-1902 (London, 1957), p. 267. See also R., Pipes, Russia Under the Old Regime (London, 1974), pp. 172–77, 192Google Scholar; Blum, J, “Russia,” in European Landed Elites in the Nineteenth Century, ed. D. Spring (Baltimore, 1977), pp. 69, 77-78, 83Google Scholar; and the references to Solov'ev, Korelin, and Wagner in note 2.

8. Pervoe polnoe sobranie zakonov rossiiskoi imperii (hereafter PSZ), no. 2789 (March 23, 1714); Vladimirskii-Budanov, Obzor, pp. 503-506; Karnovich, Zamechatel'nyia bogatstva, p. 260

9. For example, see SIRIO, 4 (1869): 228, 240, 242, 252, 275-76, 283, 315-16, 325, 326, 342, 345, 364, 368-71, 378, 388, 393, 403, 418, 423-24, 430-31, 448-49, 451, 462, 470, 471; 8 (1871): 444, 455, 456, 462, 481-82,496-97, 497-98, 501, 508-509, 514, 519, 524-25, 526-27, 539, 547-48, 549-51; 14(1875): 244, 286-88, 390-91, 397-98,405, 419, 428-29,437, 446-48,459-60,464-65,475-76,481, 487-88, 494; 36 (1882): 98, 138-39; 68 (1889): 3, 6-8, 21-22, 25-26, 31-32, 106-107, 115, 330-31, 342, 34, 347-48, 368-69, 381-82, 385-87, 401^02, 405-406, 411, 414-15, 440-41, 443, 458-59, 488-89, 492-93, 496-97, 516, 529, 532, 551-52, 554, 585-86, 606-607, 622-24; 93 (1894): 170, 430; 107 (1900): 128; see also 43 (1885): 26, 174-79. These are summarized in Augustine, “Notes,“ pp. 395-408; W. G. Wagner, “The Development of the Law of Inheritance and Patrimonial Property in Post-Emancipation Russia and its Social, Economic, and Political Implications,“ (D.Phil, thesis, Oxford University, 1980), pp. 73, 79-84, 88-89, 254-55. See also Zhitel’ Saratovskikh stepei, O cherezpolosnykh vladeniiakh and Razgovor; Khomiakov, “O cherezpolosnom vladenii“; Speranskiy “O rodovykh imeniiakh“; Vtoroe PSZ, no. 22457 (July 20, 1848), no. 41795 (February 12, 1865), no. 45975 (June 14, 1868); Romanovich-Slavatinskii, Dvorianstvo v Rossii, pp. 65, 254-56, 528-29; D., Field, The End of Serfdom. Nobility and Bureaucracy in Russia, 1855-1861 (Cambridge, Mass., 1976), pp. 41, 382-83 (n. 103)Google Scholar; Grazhdanskoe ulozhenie, intro., pp. 7-20, 27, and explanations, pp. 30-39; A. Goikhbarg, Zakon o rasshireniiprav nasledovaniiapo zakonu lits zhenskago pola iprava zaveshchaniia rodovykh imenii, 3rd. ed. (St. Petersburg, 1914), pp. 6-8; Prilozheniia k stenograficheskim otchetam gosudarstvennoi dumy. Tretii sozyv, sessiia chetvertaia 1910-1911 gg. (St. Petersburg, 1911), 3, no. 212, pp. 3-6; A. Liubavskii, “Ob uravnenii nasledstvennykh prav muzhchin i zhenshchin,” Zh. M. lu., 1864, bk. 5, sec. 2, pp. 399-424; idem, “Unichtozenie.“

10. In 1845 the wealthiest noble landowners were given the right to petition for entail of part of their estates. See Vtoroe PSZ, no. 19202 (July 16, 1845); SZ (1857), vol. 10, pt. 1, arts. 391, 395, 432 point 3, 467-93, 564, 969, 1069, 1184 point 7, 1192-213, 1641; vol. 10, pt. 2 (1857), arts. 2252- 56; Romanovich-Slavatinskii, Dvorianstvo v Rossii, pp. 254-56, 528-29; Blum, Lord and Peasant, pp. 368-69; Field, End of Serfdom, p. 224; Solov'ev, Samoderzhavie i dvorianstvo, p. 205; Wagner, “Legislative Reform,” pp. 152-53. See also Karnovich, Zamechatel'nyia bogatstva, pp. 38-43, 165-67; Neupokoev, I. V., “Pozitsiia P. D. Kiseleva v voprose sozdaniia maioratov v zapadnykh guberniiakh,” in Iz istorii ekonomicheskoi i obshchestvennoi zhizni Rossii, ed. L. V. Cherepnin (Moscow, 1976), pp. 61–71 Google Scholar. At the other end of the scale, the government also introduced a scheme of entailed estates designed simultaneously to provide for impoverished nobles and to settle Simbirsk and Saratov provinces. See Vtoroe PSZ, no. 22457 (July 20, 1848), no. 41795 (February 12, 1865), no. 45975 (June 14, 1868); SZ (1857), vol. 10, pt. 1, arts. 394 point 6, 516, 1191; Romanovich- Slavatinskii, Dvorianstvo v Rossii, p. 65; S. Es', “Zakhudalye maioraty,” Novoe vremia, 1903, no. 9679 (February 13), p. 5.

11. Grazhdanskoe ulozhenie, intro., pp. 7-19; Goikhbarg, Zakon, pp. 6-8; A. I., Kaminka, “Proekt nasledstvennago prava” Pravo, 1903, no. 47, cols. 2640-42Google Scholar.

12. See O., Crisp, Studies in the Russian Economy before 1914 (London, 1976), pp. 96-97, 114–15Google Scholar (and chaps. 1 and 2 in general); M., Confino, Domaines et seigneurs en Russie vers la fin du XVIII siècle (Paris, 1963 Google Scholar) and Systèmes agraires; Blum, Lord and Peasant, pp. 375-76, 379-85, 390; Field, End of Serfdom, pp. 134-41, 359; Pipes, Russia, pp. 93, 175-79, 191, 206-207; Kahan, A, “The Costs of ‘Westernization’ in Russia” Slavic Review, 25 (1966): 40–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; W., Pintner, Russian Economic Policy under Nicholas I (Ithaca, 1967), pp. 35–39, 42Google Scholar. See also Haxthausen, Studies, pp. 37-40, 78, 81-82, 86, 215, 248-58; Karnovich, Zamechatel'nyia bogatstva, pp. 4-5, 11-12, 15-22, 33-35, 48-50, 67-68, 70-74, 80-81, 125-41, 213-31; A. V., Iakovlev, “Zemledelie, zemlevladenie i kredit” Trudy vol'nago ekonomicheskago obshchestva, 1886, no. 1, pp. 1–29Google Scholar; Strukov, “Otvet“; Sh., “Dvorianstvo v Rossii,” bk. 3, pp. 250-84, bk. 6, p. 441; Pobedonostsev, Kurs, 1:136-38; Wallace, Russia, pp. 55-59; Romanovich-Slavatinskii, Dvorianstvo v Rossii, pp. 25, 64-66, 69, 509-10.

13. Representative samples of the issues and arguments can be found in Dvorianskoe zemlevladenie, material 1893 (St. Petersburg, 1893?); Grazhdanskoe ulozhenie, intro.; Gosudarstvennyi Sovet. Stenograficheskie otchety 1911-1912 gg. Sessiia sed'maia (St. Petersburg, 1912), cols. 1499- 1530, 1536-1744, 3362-83; Prilozheniia Gosudarstvennoi Dumy (1911), 3, no. 212, pp. 1-53; Setskoe khoziaistvo i lesovodstvo, 202, no. 8 (1901): 294-310; P. N. Gussakovskii, “Nasledstvennoe pravo po proektu Grazhdanskago Ulozheniia,” Zh. M. lu., 1903, no. 9, pp. 1-52; Liubavskii, “Ob uravnenii” and “Unichtozhenie“; P. [ Pazukhin, A. D.?], “Zapovednyia imeniia,” Moskovskie vedomosti, 1889, no. 26 (January 26), p. 2Google Scholar, and no. 31 (January 31), p. 2; N. N., Lvov, “K voprosu ob uchrezhdenii zapovednykh imenii” Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti, 1897, no. 2 (January 3), p. 2Google Scholar, and no. 6 (January 7), p. 3; B. N. Chicherin, “O sovremennom polozhenii russkago dvorianstva,“ ibid., 1897, no. 28 (January 29), p. 1; K. Golovin, “K voprosu o zapovednykh imeniiakh,“ ibid., 1896, no. 17 (January 18), p. 1, and no. 18 (January 19), pp. 1-2; Russkie vedomosti, 1903, no. 97 (April 10), p. 2, and no. 103 (April 16), p. 2; Gurko, V. I., Features and Figures of the Past. Government and Opinion in the Reign of Nicholas II (Stanford, 1939), pp. 57-68, 201–203 Google Scholar. See also Wagner, “Legislative Reform,” pp. 153-78; Solov'ev, Samoderzhavie i dvorianstvo, pp. 201-16, 316-26; Korelin, Dvorianstvo, pp. 261-84; Wagner, “Development,” pp. 74-96, 165-204, 214-16, 223-25, 229-62.

14. For examples of such views, see Grazhdanskoe ulozhenie, intro.; Prilozheniia Gosudarstvennoi Dumy (1911), 3, no. 212; Gosudarstvennyi Sovet. Stenograficheskie otchety 1911-1912, cols. 1499-1530, 1536-1744, 3362-83; Zamechaniia o nedostatkakh deistvuiushchikh grazhdanskikh zakonov. Izdanie redaktsionnoi komissii po sostavleniiu grazhdanskago ulozheniia (St. Petersburg, 1891), nos. 1, 14, 109, 180, 293-94, 305-14, 317-18, 320, 486, 501, 507, 573-79, 586-604, 609-12, 623, 720-25; Gussakovskii, “Nasledstvennoe pravo“; Goikhbarg, Zakon; Liubavskii, “Unichtozhenie“ ; idem, “Ob uravnenii“; A. N. Gedda, “Obiazatel'naia dolia v nasledstve po proektu novago grazhdanskago ulozheniia,” Zh. M. Iu., 1904, no. 2; K. D. Kavelin, “Russkoe grazhdanskoe ulozhenie,“ Zhurnal grazhdanskago i ugolovnago prava (hereafter Zh. g. i u. p.), 1882, nos. 8, 9, and 1883, nos. 1, 2; K. P. Zmirlov, “O nedostatkakh nashikh grazhdanskikh zakonov. Zakony o nasledovanii po zakonu,” ibid., 1883, nos. 9, 10, and 1884, no. 5; idem, “Znachenie rodovykh imushchestv dlia budushchago grazhdanskago ulozheniia,” ibid., 1889, no. 3; idem, “Otmena ili preobrazovanie nashikh zakonov o rodovykh imushchestvakh?” Zh. M. Iu., 1898, no. 4; Spasovich, V. D., “Sledovalo by razreshit’ svobodnoe rasporiazhenie po dukhovnym zaveshchaniiam rodovymi imushchestvami,” in Pervyi s“ezd russkikh iuristov v Moskve v 1875 godu, ed. S. I. Barshev et al. (Moscow, 1882)Google Scholar; la. I. Gurliand, “O neravenstve prav zhenshchin s pravami mushchin pri nasledovanii po zakonu,” Iuridicheskoe obozrenie, 1885, nos. 203-210; D. I. Azarevich, “Svoboda i ogranichenie dukhovnykh zaveshchanii,” Zh. g. i u. p., 1889, no. 8; idem, “Semeinyia imushchestvennyia otnosheniia po russkomu pravu,” ibid., 1883, no. 4; M. la. Pergament, “'Predely nasledovaniia’ v grazhdanskom prave,” Vestnik prava, 1906, no. 3; V. I. Kurdinovskii, “Vymorochnyia imushchestva,” Zh. M. Iu., 1902, no. 8; S. Orshanskii, “Nasledstvennyia prava russkoi zhenshchiny,” Zh. g. i u. p., 1876, nos. 2, 3; A. M. Evreinova, “Ob uravnenii prav zhenshchin pri nasledovanii (Protokoly grazhdanskago otdeleniia Sankt-Peterburgskago iuridicheskago obshchestva. XLI i XLII Zasedaniia 1 i 15 maia),” ibid., 1884, no. 3 (Prilozhenie), and no. 7 (Prilozhenie); I. V., Gessen, “Vliianie zakonodatel'stva na polozhenie zhenshchin” Pravo, 1908, no. 51 Google Scholar; Daragan, M, “O vykupe rodovykh imushchestv” Sovremennaia letopis, 1862, no. 41 (OctoberGoogle Scholar); Russkie vedomosti, 1903, no. 97 (April 10), p. 2, and no. 103 (April 16), p. 2; ibid., 1912, no. 38 (February 16), p. 1; Russkaia mysl', 1890, bk. 3, pp. 231-32; ibid., 1899, bk. 10, pp. 222-23; Rech', 1912, no. 41 (February 12), p. 2; Vestnik Evropy, 1880, bk. 2, pp. 823-30; ibid., 1883, bk. 3, pp. 380-87; ibid., 1903, bk. 11, pp. 360-67; ibid., 1912, bk. 3, pp. 412-14; “Prava zhenshchin po nasledovaniiu,” Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti, 1893, no. 73 (March 16), p. 1; “O nasledovanii zhenshchin po zakonu,” ibid., 1891, no. 8 (February 24), pp. 1-3; “K voprosu ob uravnenii nasledstvennykh prav muzhshchin i zhenshchin,” Sudebnaia gazeta, 1893, no. 14 (April 4), pp. 1-4; and the references to Il'iashenko, Kavelin, Tovstoles, and Beliaev in n. 5.

15. Zamechaniia o nedostatkakh, nos. 320-23, 564-65, 583, 590; Spasovich, “Sledovalo by,“ pp. 158-59, 163-64; A. I. Zagorovskii, “K voprosu o zakonnoi nasledstvennoi dote,” Zh. M. Iu., 1896, nos. 5, 6; A. A., Bashmakov, “Institut rodovykh imushchestv nakanune ego otmeny ili preobrazovaniia” Zhurnal iuridicheskago obshchestva pri Imperatorskom Sankt-Peterburgskom Universitete, 1897, no. 9 Google Scholar; idem, “Opyt kriticheskoi otsenki instituta obiazatel'noi doli,” ibid., 1897, no. 7; idem, “Institut rodovykh imushchestv pered sudom russkoi iurisprudentsii,” Zh. M. Iu., 1897, nos. 7, 8; A. Brandt, “O rodovykh imushchestvakh,” Zh. g. i u. p., 1888, nos. 6, 7; Kasso, L. A., Russkoe pozemel'noe pravo (Moscow, 1906), pp. 19, 149Google Scholar; Pobedonostsev, Kurs, vol. 1, pp. 64-65, vol. 2, pp. 443, 487-88; Malyshev, Karnitskii, and Saburov in Grazhdanskoe ulozhenie, intro., pp. 96-98,103-44, and also pp. 86-87; V. N. Nikol'skii, Ob osnovnykh momentakh nasledovaniia (Moscow, 1871), pp. 73-80, 127-54; K., Malyshev, Kurs obshchago grazhdanskago prava Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1878), vol. 1 Google Scholar; Pravo, 1903, no. 46, cols. 2617-19; Prilozheniia Gosudarstven noi Dumy (1911), 3, no. 212, pp. 8-10; P. [Pazukhin?], “Zapovednyia imeniia“; Meshcherskii, (pis'mo v redaktsiiu), Novoe vremia, 1888, no. 4390 (May 20), pp. 1-2; Lvov, “K voprosu“; Lykoshin, A, “Rodovyia imushchestva i dvorianskoe zemlevladenie” Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti, 1900, no. 213 (August 6), pp. 1-2Google Scholar; Dvorianskoe zemlevladenie, 1893; “Nedelimyia imeniia i krest'ianskie dvory,” Novoe vremia, 1903, no. 9674 (February 8), p. 3; “Rezoliutsii moskovskago dvorianstva,” ibid., p. 13; Sel'skoe khoziaistvo i lesovodstvo, 202, no. 8 (1901), pp. 294-310; Moskovskie vedomosti, 1902, no. 190 (July 13), p. 1; Gosudarstvennyi Sovet. Stenograficheskie otchety 1911-1912, cols. 1499-1530, 1536-1744, 3362-83, 3444, 3498.

16. Chicherin, “O sovremennom polozhenii“; Romer, F, “K dvorianskomu voprosu” Sankt- Peterburgskie vedomosti, 1898, no. 3 (January 4), pp. 1-2Google Scholar; idem, “Obosoblennost’ dvorianstva,“ Novoe vremia, 1898, no. 7987 (May 24), pp. 2-3; idem, “Budushchee dvorianstva,” ibid., 1900, no. 8571 (January 7), pp. 2-3, and no. 8616 (February 22), pp. 2-3; Evreinov, G. A., Proshloe i nastoiashchee znachenie russkago dvorianstva (St. Petersburg, 1898)Google Scholar; Golovin, K, “Kak pomoch' zemlevladeniiu?” Moskovskie vedomosti, 1896, no. 75 (March 16), p. 2 Google Scholar; idem, “Dvorianskii vopros,” Novoe vremia, 1898, no. 7937 (April 2), pp. 2-3, no. 7938 (April 3), p. 2, and no. 7939 (April 4), p. 2; idem, Moi vospominaniia, 2 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1908, 1910), 2:95-151, 229-74; idem, “K voprosu“; F. G. Terner, “Dvorianstvo i zemlevladenie,” Vestnik Evropy, 1903, bk. 3, pp. 5-55; Gurko, Features, pp. 57-68, 201-203; Dvorianskoe zemlevladenie, 1893; Sel'skoe khoziaistvo i lesovodstvo, 202, no. 8 (1901), pp. 294-310; Gosudarstvennyi Sovet. Stenograficheskie otchety 1911-1912, cols. 1499-530, 1536-744, 3362-83.

17. Wagner, “Legislative Reform” pp. 167-75; Sobranie uzakonenii i rasporiazhenii pravitel'stva, 1912, no. 107, item 914; Goikhbarg, Zakon

18. By far the best work on the development of a true legal profession in Russia at this time and its attitude toward the law is R., Wortman, The Development of a Russian Legal Consciousness (Chicago, 1976 Google Scholar). See also S., Kucherov, Courts, Lawyers and Trials under the Last Three Tsars (New York, 1953)Google Scholar; Kaiser, F. B., Die Russische Justizreform von 1864. Zur Geschichte der Russischen Justiz von Katharine II bis 1917 (Leiden, 1972)Google Scholar.

19. For prereform law, see SZ (1857), vol. 1, pt. 1, Osnovnye gosudarstvennye zakony, arts. 47, 52, 54-55, 57, 65, 67-69, 72-73, vol. 1, pt. 2, Uchrezhdenie pravitel'stvuiushchago senata, arts. 59 point 3, 61, 101-102, 225-28, vol. 2, pt. 1, Obshchee gubernskoe uchrezhdenie, arts. 281, 744-46. For postreform law, see the references in n. 20. See also the works cited in n. 18 and Speranskii, M. M., Obozrenie istoricheskikh svedenii o svode zakonov, izdano Odesskim iuridicheskim obshchestvom v pamiat’ 50-ia dnia smerti grafa M. M. Speranskago (Odessa, 1889), pp. 35–44 Google Scholar; A. D. Gradovskii, “O sudebnom tolkovanii zakonov po russkomu pravu,” Zh. g. i u. p., 1874, no. 1, pp. 4-18, 42-47, 55; Korkunov, N. M., Lektsii po obshchei teorii prava, 7th ed. (St. Petersburg, 1905), pp. 305–308 Google Scholar; Malyshev, Kurs, vol. 1, pp. 4-5, 48-57, 71-72, 74-75, 283-86; Shershenevich, G. F., Nauka grazhdanskago prava v Rossii (Kazan, 1893), pp. 232–43Google Scholar; N. I., Lazarevskii, “Tolkovanie zakonov po russkomu pravu” Pravo, 1902, no. 8, cols. 361-68Google Scholar; for a somewhat contrary view, G. V. Demchenko, “Sudebnyi pretsedent,” Zh. M. Iu., 1903, no. 3, pp. 91-92, and no. 4, pp. 26-82.

20. Sudebnye ustavy 20 noiabria 1864 goda, s izlozheniem razsuzhdenii, na koikh oni osnovany (St. Petersburg, 1866), pt. 1, Ustav grazhdanskago sudoproizvodstva, arts. 9-10, 793, 813, 815 (with explanations), and pt. 3, Uchrezhdenie sudebnykh ustanovlenu, arts. 1,114-19 (with explanations). The meaning was ambiguous even among the reformers, who divided roughly into two groups, each respectively advocating the obligatory or nonobligatory force of high court decisions in similar cases. The difference in attitude arose from the different emphasis each group placed on the court's role in ensuring uniform interpretation and application of the law in general and in preventing injustice in particular cases. Several of the former group later became Cassation Department senators. See Harvard Law Library: Sudebnaia reforma (which corresponds to Delo o preobrazovanti sudebnoi chasti v Rossii noted in Kaiser, Russische Justizreform), vol. 6, no. 11, “O kassatsii sudebnykh reshenii,” vol. 12, “Zhurnal soedinennykh departamentov zakonodatel'stva i grazhdanskikh del Gosodarstvennago soveta o preobrazovanii sudebnoi chasti v Rossii,” pp. 54-57, 105-107, 144, 287-99, 349 (arts. 1-3), 357-58 (arts. 42-45), “Gosudarstvennyi sovet v obshchem sobranii, 27 avgusta 1862 g.,” pp. 22-37, “Vypusk vysochaishei rezoliutsii,” pp. 1-2, vol. 14, “Ob“iasnitel'naia zapiska k proektu Uchrezhdeniia sudebnykh mest,” pp. 50-54, 172-73, 297-99, vol. 18, “Zhurnal Gosudarstvennago soveta, No. 44,” pp. 40-44, vol. 21, “Svod zamechanii na proekt sudoproizvodstva grazhdanskago,” pt. 1, pp. 87 (art. 740), 122-123, pt. 2, pp. 394-400 (arts. 726, 734, 736-37, 740), “Svod zamechanii na dopolnitel'nye proekty … ,” pt. 1, pp. 116-23, pt. 2, pp. 143-45, 189-202, vol. 22, “Zametki Ministerstva Iustitsii na proekt ustava grazhdanskago sudoproizvodstva,“ pp. 146-56, vol. 23, “Ob“iasnitel'naia zapiska k proektu ustava grazhdanskago sudoproizvodstva,“ pt. 1, pp. 435-74, vol. 29, “Trudy grazhdanskago otdela komissii o sudebnoi reforme,“ pp. 173-76, 180-204 (volume numbers refer to those made by hand at Harvard).

21. Polnyi svod reshenii grazhdanskago kassatsionnago departmenta pravitel'stvuiushchago senata, 1866-1910 (Ekaterinoslav, 1910) (hereafter SRGKD), and Resheniia grazhdanskago kassatsionnago departamenta pravitel'stvuiushchago senata (St. Petersburg, 1867-1914) (hereafter RGKD), 1867 no. 519, 1868 no. 326 (also nos. 181, 188), 1870 nos. 1598 and 1628, 1872 nos. 899 and 1217,1874 no. 599,1876 no. 102 (and related case 1872 no. 1188), 1878 no. 92,1879 no. 3,1880 no. 46,1883 no. 49,1893 no. 86,1896 no. 122,1914 no. 17 (all on the obligatory force of decisions); 1868 no. 326, 1879 nos. 3 and 143, 1882 no. 166, 1914 no. 59 (on the right of lower courts to interpret decisions), and 1872 nos. 974 and 1237, 1883 no. 49, 1884 no. 47 (on the incorrect interpretation and application of decisions as grounds for cassation); 1869 no. 853, 1872 nos. 974 and 1237, 1878 no. 92, 1879 no. 3 (right of the Cassation Department to review the interpretation and application of its decisions by lower courts); 1868 nos. 181, 188, and 869, 1873 no. 168, 1883 no. 49, 1884 no. 47, 1886 nos. 42, 106, and 107, 1893 no. 86, 1896 no. 122, 1899 no. 105, 1907 no. 102, 1913 no. 36,1914 no. 59 (distinguish Cassation Department decisions from decisions of all other courts, including the unpublished decisions of departments within the Cassation Department); 1880 no. 46,1887 no. 106, and see also 1870 no. 1628,1879 no. 143 (on the Cassation Department altering its interpretation). Polnyi svod reshenii obshchago sobraniia pervago i kassatsionnykh departamentov i kassatsionnykh departamentov pravitel'stvuiushchago senata, ed. L. M. Rotenberg, 2 vols. (Ekaterinoslav, 1909, 1910) (hereafter ROSPKD), 1903 no. 25. See also A. L. Borovikovskii, “V sude i o sude. I. ‘Zakonnaia sila’ kassatsionnykh reshenii,” Zh. M. Iu., 1896, no. 10, pp. 15-26; Isachenko, V. L., “Grazhdanskii kassatsionnyi departament pravitel'stvuiushchago senata,” in Voprosy prava iprotsessa. Sbornik tsivilisticheskikh statei, 2 vols. (Petrograd, 1917), 2:128, 131, 143–44Google Scholar.

22. See for example SRGKD 1868 nos. 181 and 188, 1873 no. 1214.

23. A. Dumashevskii, “Iuridicheskoe obozrenie,” Zh. M. Iu., 36 (July, 1868): 83-86; la. K. Gorodyskii, “Nashi sudy i sudebnye poriadki po dannym revizii 1895 g.,” ibid., 1901, no. 2, p. 21, and no. 6, p. 91; Druzhinin, N. P., Obshchedostupnoe rukovodstvo k izucheniiu zakonov, 2nd ed. (St. Petersburg, 1899), pp. 128-29,131–32Google Scholar; Shershenevich, Nauka, pp. 232-43; Chikhachev, K, “O iuridicheskoi sile i prakticheskom znachenii reshenii kassatsionnykh departamentov pravitel'stvuiushchago senata” Zhurnal iuridicheskago obshechestva pri Imperatorskom Sankt-Peterburgskom Universitete, 1896, no. 7, pt. 2, pp. 40-42, 55-56Google Scholar; Demchenko, “Sudebnyi pretsedent,” no. 3, pp. 112-13; D. D. Grimm, “K voprosu o poniatii i istochnike obiazatel'nosti iuridicheskikh norm,“ Zh. M. Iu., 1896, no. 6, pp. 153-55; Borovikovskii, “V sude,” pp. 15-26; Guliaev, “Obshchiia ucheniia,” pp. 333-43; Isachenko, “Grazhdanskii kassatsionnyi departament,” vol. 2, pp. 130,133, 139-41,155. For an example see SRGKD 1872, no. 1188 and 1876 no. 102. For contrary arguments by lower courts, see SRGKD 1887 no. 106 (where the Cassation Department disregarded the lower court's statement on this issue because it intended to change its opinion on the point of law being reviewed) and A. Kh. Gol'msten, “Praktika grazhdanskago suda,” Zh. g. i u. p., 1881, no. 2, pt. 2, pp. 29, 34.

24. Gorodyskii, “Nashi sudy,” no. 6, p. 91. See also SRGKD 1869 no. 675, 1870 nos. 330 and 451, 1872 nos. 534 and 899, 1873 no. 1214, 1875 no. 969, 1882 nos. 46 and 166.

25. In other continental civilian jurisdictions, decisions of the equivalent court could become binding only on the lower courts actually rehearing the case, and only in that case. Of course, the practical influence of these courts was wider. Also, academic jurists played a more openly influential role than that accorded their Russian counterparts. In general, see Friedmann, Law; A. V., Dicey, Law and Public Opinion in England, 2nd ed. (London, 1940 Google Scholar), especially lecture XI and append. 4; H. J., Berman and W. R., Greiner, The Nature and Functions of Law, 4th ed. (Mineola, New York, 1980), especially pt. 2Google Scholar; Kahn-Freund, intro. to Renner, Institutions; Abraham, H. J., The Judicial Process, 4th ed. (New York, 1980)Google Scholar.

26. Dumashevskii, “Iuridicheskoe obozrenie,” pp. 83-86; I. Engel'man, “O davnosti po russkomupravu,“ Zh. M, Iu., 1868, no. 11, pp. 501-503; “Znachenie reshenii kassatsionnykh departamentov senata,” Sudebnyi vestnik, 1869, no. 165 (July 30), pp. 1-2; Pobedonostsev, K. P., Sudebnoe rukovodstvo. Sbornikpravil, polozhenii iprimerov (St. Petersburg, 1872), pp. 345, 349–51Google Scholar; “Protokoly zasedanii moskovskago iuridicheskago obshchestva, 17 ianvaria 1872 goda,” Iuridicheskii vestnik, 1872, nos. 6-7, pp. 3-16; fon Rezon, , “O sile kassatsionnykh reshenii” Sudebnyi zhurnal, 1873, no. 4, pp. 1–31Google Scholar; Gradovskii, “O sudebnom tolkovanii,” pp. 1-62; Malyshev, Kurs, vol. 1, pp. 1-5, 12-20, 49-57, 63-106, 279-301, 337-55; Dzhanshiev, G, “O starom i novom napravlenii grazhdanskoi kassatsionnoi praktiki” Iuridicheskii vestnik, 1881, no. 4, pp. 747–73Google Scholar; Shershenevich, Nauka, pp. 232-43; idem, “Primenenie norm prava,” Zh. M. Iu., 1903, no. 1, pp. 34-82; Chikhachev, “O iuridicheskoi sile,” pp. 40-56; Annenkov, Sistema, vol. 1, pp. 2-37; Vas'kovskii, E. V., “Sudeiskoe usmotrenie pri tolkovanii zakonov,” Pravo, 1901, no. 50, cols. 2215-25Google Scholar. For contrary views, see the works by Korkunov, Guliaev, Demchenko, Grimm, Borovikovskii, and Isachenko (the last two were senators in the Civil Cassation Department) cited in notes 19 and 23, and Valershtein, , “Po povodu stat'i ‘O sile kassatsionnykh reshenii', pomeshchennoi v ‘Sudebnom Zhurnale’ za iul'-avgust 1873 goda” Sudebnyi vestnik, 1873, no. 208 (September 28), pp. 1–2Google Scholar; la. G. Esipovich, “O tolkovanii zakonov,” Zh. M. Iu., 1894/5, no. 2, pp. 84-112 (the author was both a member of the commission which composed the judicial reforms and a senator in the Civil Cassation Department); S. A., Muromtsev, “Sud i zakon v grazhdanskom prave” Iuridicheskii vestnik, 1880, no. 11, pp. 377–93Google Scholar.

27. See the references cited in n. 23 and the references to fon Rezon, Engel'man, and “Protokoly” (speech by Markonet) cited in n. 26.

28. These are described at length in Wagner, “Development,” pp. 97-164, which, so far as I can determine, is the only work in which the high court's development of the law has been extensively analyzed.

29. As movable, hence acquired, property, stocks and shares could be disposed of at the owner's complete discretion. Thus the owner could dispose of these shares, and consequently of his managerial and other powers, as he chose. But as manager of the corporation, he also could dispose of its assets as he chose. Anan'ev versus The St. Petersburg Curtain-Lace Co. was reported in SRGKD 1878 no. 81, and Bashkirovy versus Bashkirovy and Piatovaia in 1907 no. 61. See also 1873 no. 1179, 1887 no. 42, 1898 no. 31, 1899 no. 56, and K. P. Zmirlov, “Mozhet li byt’ priznana rodovym imushchestvom chast’ imushchestva torgovago doma polnago tovarishchestva, pereshedshaia posle smerti polnago tovarishcha k ego zakonnomu nasledniku, esli do smerti oznachennago tovarishcha eta chast’ ne sostavliala sobstvennosti umershago?” Zh. M. Iu., 1907, no. 7, pp. 129-39. See as well Crisp, Studies, p. 113; Shepelev, L. E., “Aktsionernoe uchreditel'stvo v Rossii (istoriko-statisticheskii ocherk),” in Iz istorii imperializma v Rossii. Akademiia Nauk SSSR. Trudy Leningradskago otdeleniia instituta istorii, ed. M. P. Viatkin, Vypusk 1 (Moscow, Leningrad, 1959), p. 135 n. 6Google Scholar; Sel'skoe khoziaistvo i lesovodstvo, 202, no. 8 (1901): 301-302.

30. See SRGKD 1867 no. 144, 1876 no. 214, 1877 nos. 168 and 286, 1879 nos. 3 and 58, 1880 nos. 1, 150, and 183, 1888 nos. 74 and 91, 1892 no. 80, 1897 no. 68, 1899 no. 30, 1901 no. 97, 1902 no. 98, 1906 no. 15, 1907 no. 90, 1909 no. 90 (on minimizing conversion to patrimonial property); 1892 no. 80, 1905 nos. 82 and 96, 1908 no. 13, 1871 no. 1256, 1901 no. 97, 1896 no. 93, 1872 no. 474,1889 no. 83,1902 no. 120,1881 no. 187,1890 no. 41,1876 no. 246,1906 no. 38; A. E _ v, “Baryshnikovskoe nasledstvo,” Moskovskie vedomosti, 1899, nos. 326, 328,330,333 (November 26, 28, 30, December 3), all p. 2; Mrts. [ Muromtsev, S. A.], “Simulirovannyia sdelki kasatel'no nedvizhimykh imenii,” Iuridicheskii vestnik, 1880, bk. 5, pp. 158–59Google Scholar; Gorodyskii, “Nashi sudy,” no. 5, pp. 116-18, and no. 6, p. 112 (all on conversion from patrimonial property).

31. See for example SRGKD 1900 no. 73, 1910 no. 51, 1880 nos. 1 and 78 (first heard 1878 no. 54), 1899 no. 11, 1872 no. 474, 1883 no. 16, 1879 no. 16, 1891 no. 82, 1909 no. 101; Pravo, 1914, no. 5, sudebnyia otchety, cols. 370-71.

32. See Wagner, “Development,” pp. 97-164, for a more detailed development of this argument.

33. Bashmakov, “Institut rodovykh imushchestv nakanune,” pp. 123, 127, 98-101; idem, “Institut rodovykh imushchestv pered sudom,” no. 8, pp. 55-58; Brandt, “O rodovykh imushestvakh,“ no. 7, pp. 48-49; Kasso, Russkoe pozemel'noe pravo, p. 148; Pobedonostsev, Kurs, vol. 2, p. 443; the views of Malyshev and Saburov in Grazhdanskoe ulozhenie, intro., pp. 103-104,130-31.

34. Daragan, “O vykupe“; L. (letter), Novoe vremia, 1900, no. 8879 (November 14), p. 2; G. (letter), Novoe vremia, 1901, no. 9039 (April 29), p. 4; Kasso, Russkoe pozemel'noe pravo, p. 148; Zamechaniia o nedostatkakh, nos. 309, 720-25; SRGKD 1891 no. 40.

35. See SRGKD 1869 no. 138,1870 no. 772,1895 no. 59,1900 no. 11,1903 nos. 52,62, and 75, 1904 no. 88; RGKD 1911 no. 40; but see SRGKD 1881 no. 136, where a distinction was made for urban reality, and 1906 no. 17 for an example of the difficulties that followed from this decision. For other ways in which the court limited the right, see 1882 no. 48, 1905 no. 82; RGKD 1913 no. 31; Mrts. [Muromtsev], “Simulirovannyia sdelki.“

36. Novoe vremia, 1899, no. 8361 (June 9), p. 4, 1900, nos. 8600 (February 5), p. 5, 8624 (March 1), p. 2,8630 (March 7), p. 2, and 1901, no. 9194 (October 8), p. 2; Moskovskie vedomosti, 1899, no. 129 (May 12), p. 5, and 1900, nos. 117 (April 19), p. 2, 131 (May 12), p. 2, and 340 (December 9), p. 2. See also P. [Pazukhin?], “Zapovednyia imeniia“; P. N., Tsertelev, “Podderzhanie dvorianskago zemlevladeniia i zapovednost’ imenii” Moskovskie vedomosti, 1897, nos. 110-12 (April 23-25)Google Scholar, all p. 2; Otchet po deloproizvodstvu Gosudarstvennago Soveta za sessiiu 1893- 1894 gg., 2 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1894), 2:520-27, and za sessiiu 1898-1899 gg. (St. Petersburg, 1899), pp. 217-18, 252-57, 266-67.

37. For statutory law as it stood at the time of the emancipation, see SZ (1857), vol. 10, pt. 1, arts. 229-30, 295, 1010-104, 1222, vol. 9, arts. 222, 259, 267, 298, 304, 309, 550 point 2, 1536, vol. 11, pt. 1, Ustavy dukhovnykh del inostrannykh ispovedanii, arts. 115, 609, and vol. 11, pt. 2, Ustav kreditnyi, arts. 293,1199,1204-209. For general surveys of the law, see the works cited in n. 5.

38. These disputes were quite numerous. A sense of most of the issues can be obtained from comparing the general works cited in n. 5, especially those by Pobedonostsev, Annenkov, Tovstoles, and Beliaev.

39. SRGKD 1870 no. 1856. That the court of appeals was troubled particularly by the problems apparently caused by a conditional beneficiary as yet unborn is suggested by its decisions in SRGKD 1868 no. 25 and 1875 no. 1073, where the question did not arise and the court appeared open to a more liberal interpretation of the law with respect to the other issues. For discussions of the case see the editorials in Moskovskie vedomosti, 1869, nos. 90 (April 27), pt. 1, 115 (May 28), pp. 1-2, and 273 (December 16), p. 3; Sokolovskii, N, “Iuridicheskiia zametki” Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti, 1869, no. 159 (June 12), pp. 1-2Google Scholar; Unkovskii, A. N. (plaintiff's attorney), “Eshche neskol'ko zamechanii po povodu dukhovnago zaveshchaniia grafini Zubovoi,” Sovremennaia letopis, 1869, no. 23 (June 22), pp. 14-16Google Scholar; P. Vel'iashev, “Pis'mo k izdateliam,” Moskovskie vedomosti, 1869, no. 99 (May 8), p. 3; A. Ostriakov (Zubov's attorney), “Vozrazhenie na stat'iu v No. 90-m Moskovskikh vedomostei po povodu dela o dukhovnom zaveshchanii grafini Zubovoi,” Moskovskie vedomosti, 1869, no. 115 (May 28), p. 3; Pobedonostsev, Kurs, vol. 2, pp. 584-88, 658-60; Moiseenko, N, “O substitutsii v zaveshchanii po russkomu polozhitel'nomu pravu” Izvestiia i uchenyia zapiski Imperatorskago Kazanskago Universiteta, 1874, no. 5, pp. 787–88Google Scholar; A. Liubavskii, “O vneshnei forme zaveshchanii,” in Iuridicheskiia monografli, vol. 2, pp. 192-202. See also Nikol'skii, Ob osnovnykh momentakh, pp. 183-95, 203-204; Shershenevich, Uchebnik, pp. 707-709; Gussakovskii, “Nasledstvennoe pravo,” pp. 40-44.

40. SRGKD 1873 no. 1530 and 1875 no. 1073. For related decisions see 1882 no. 63, 1888 no. 63, 1901 nos. 51 and 111, 1908 no. 77. These cases and issues are discussed in Wagner, “Development,” pp. 308-27.

41. SRGKD 1875 no. 429. See also 1868 no. 110, 1869 nos. 816 and 1334, 1870 no. 917, 1871 no. 274,1874 no. 583,1875 nos. 91 and 429,1876 nos. 302 and 460,1878 nos. 60,138, and 274,1880 no. 56, 1881 nos. 16 and 131, 1888 no. 63, 1901 no. I l l , 1902 nos. 104 and 112, 1903 no. 28, 1904 no. 85, 1906 no. 88.

42. For examples see SRGKD 1869 nos. 816 and 1334, 1870 no. 1856, 1871 no. 643, 1874 nos. 155, 583, and 709, 1879 no. 205, 1881 no. 116. This principle underlay charitable bequests as well (for example, see 1875 nos. 27 and 322, 1902 no. 104).

43. The Ministry of Justice memorandum is described in the report of the Duma committee (Prilozheniia Gosudarstvennoi Dumy [1911], 3, no. 212, pp. 5-6); the Duma members’ opinion is given in the same report (ibid., pp. 8, 13). See also Liubavskii, “Unichtozhenie,” pp. 22-23. The commission compiling a new civil code also adopted this attitude ﹛Grazhdanskoe ulozhenie, arts. 39-120 with explanations, especially art. 66 and its explanation, p. 190).

44. For examples, see SRGKD 1868 no. 25,1869, no. 1334,1870 no. 1856,1871 no. 643,1873 . no. 201, 1874 no. 299 (with 1875 no. 695), 1875 nos. 27 and 322, 1879, nos. 21, 27, and 78, 1882 nos. 83 and 130, 1883 no. 86, 1886 no. 20, 1887 no. 11, 1902 no. 104, 1909 no. 75; RGKD 1912 no. 75, 1913 no. 62.

45. See for example the views of Bashmakov, “Institut rodovykh imushchestv nakanune,” and “Institut rodovykh imushchestv pered sudom“; Malyshev and Saburov, Grazhdanskoe ulozhenie, intro., pp. 103-44; Tiutriumov, Zamechaniia o nedostatkakh, nos. 1, 14, 109, 180, 501, 573, 623; Zmirlov, “Otmena,” pp. 93-94,108-109; Kavelin, “Russkoe grazhdanskoe ulozhenie,” 1882, no. 9 pp. 1-24; idem, “Pravo nasledovaniia,” cols. 1190-92,1216,1241-45,1260-70; G., Dormidontov, K voprosu o vliianii zakonov o nasledstve na raspredelenie nedvizhimoi sobstvennosti (Kazan, 1885)Google Scholar. See also the references cited in n. 36.

46. The curricula of various law schools are given in N. Rennenkampf, “Sud'by privillegirovannykh i neprivillegirovannykh iuristov (k statistike iuridicheskago obrazovaniia v Rossii s 1865g.),” Zh. g. i u. p., 1881, no. 1, pp. 67-98. See also Wortman, Development, in general, and Kaiser, Russische Justizreform, pp. 97-100, 102-106. The influence of civilian jurisprudence is readily apparent in any work on civil law produced by a Russian jurist during this period. On this influence in general see V. I., Gsovski, “Roman Private Law in Russia” Bulletino dell’ Istituto di Diritto Romano, 46 (1939): 363–75Google Scholar; D. P., Hammer, “Russia and the Roman Law” American Slavic and East European Review, 16 (1957): 1-13Google Scholar.

47. See Kahn-Freund, intro. to Renner, Institutions, pp. 17-24; Friedmann, Law, pp. 71-88; Noyes, C. Reinold, The Institution of Property. A Study of the Development, Substance and Arrangement of the System of Property in Modern Anglo-American Law (New York, 1936 Google Scholar), particularly pp. 517-21. For example, the French civil code (art. 544) stated: “La propriety est le droit de jouir et disposer des choses de la maniere la plus absolue, pourvu qu'on n'en fasse pas un usage prohibfi par la loi ou par les reglements.“

48. This of course did not prevent some jurists of conservative, populist, or even radical political persuasion from rejecting the principle of unfettered individualism and proposing ways to limit it. For a jurist of each persuasion, see respectively the works of Bashmakov, Tiutriumov, and Kavelin cited in n. 45.

49. For example, see Grazhdanskoe ulozhenie, intro., pp. 40-103; Spasovich, “Sledovalo by,“ pp. 153-57, 161-62; Liubavskii, “Unichtozhenie,” pp. 9-13,18, 20; Zmirlov, “Otmena,” pp. 75-90, 93, 108-109, 111-12, 117-24; Pobedonostsev, Kurs, vol. 1, pp. 64-65, 131-39, vol. 2, 293-302, 441-45; Vladimirskii-Budanov, Obzor, pp. 548-56, 585-88. See also the references cited i

50. Grazhdanskoe ulozhenie. See also the references cited in n. 14.

51. See for example SRGKD 1879 no. 27, 1884 no. 75 (and 108), 1891 no. 40, 1900 no. 11; RGKD 1912 no. 75, 1913 no. 62.

52. For example, contrast the views expressed by Gussakovskii, “Nasledstvennoe pravo,“ pp. 23-27, and Zmirlov, “Znachenie,” pp. 79-80, with the concerns expressed by Golovin, Meshcherskii, P. [Pazukhin?], Lvov, Chicherin, and participants in the State Council and Agricultural Council (Sel'skoe khoziaistvo i lesovodstvo) debates in the Works cited in nn. 15 and 16.

53. For example, see the views of Witte, Ermolov, Manassein, and other ministers and government officials expressed in Otchet Gosudarstvennago Soveta za 1892-1893, vol. 2, pp. 347-59, za 1893-1894, vol. 1, pp. 699-704, vol. 2, pp. 520-27, za 1898-1899, pp. 216-69, 838-63, za 1899-1900, vol. 2, pp. 41-65, 576-642, za 1901-1902, pp. 154-99, 605-16, za 1905-1906, pp. 201- 82; Dvorianskoe zemlevladenie, 1893; Sel'skoe khoziaistvo i lesovodstvo, 202, no. 8 (1901), pp. 294-310; Gosudarstvennyi Sovet. Stenograficheskie otchety 1911-1912, cols. 1499-1530, 1536- 1744, 3362-83; Terner, “Dvorianstvo i zemlevladenie“; Gurko, Features, pp. 57-68, 201-203. See also the references to Solov'ev, Korelin, and Wagner in n. 2.

54. See Grazhdanskoe ulozhenie; Sobranie uzakonenii i rasporiazhenii pravitel'stva, 1912, no. 107, item 914; Goikhbarg, Zakon; Wagner, “Legislative Reform,” pp. 153-78.

55. In this respect it is worth noting that the urban industrial and commercial community seemed much less concerned with the law's deficiencies than landowners or political writers, and seemed to consider the issue the concern of other, chiefly agrarian, groups. For example, see Novosti i birzhevaia gazeta, 1892, nos. 58 (February 28), p. 2 “Russkaia pechat',” 73 (March 14), p. 2 “Otkliki,” 74 (March 15), p. 2 “Russkaia pechat',” and 77 (March 18), pp. 1-2 “K voprosu maioratov“; V. Bystrenin, “Zemledel'cheskii ‘krizis',” ibid., 1898, no. 330 (November 30), p. 1; Birzhevyia vedomosti, 1892, nos. 65 (March 6), p. 2 “Nasha pechat',” 76 (March 17), p. 2 “Nasha pechat',” 92 (April 2), p. 2 “Nasha pechat',” and 95 (April 7), p. 1 “Nedvizhimaia sobstvennost’ i maioraty,” and 1893, no. 173 (June 26), pp. 1-2 “Novosti i otgoloski.” The nature of their occupation and property may have better enabled merchants and industrialists to exploit the court's rulings, for example through incorporation (see the references to Crisp, Shepelev, and Sel'skoe khoziaistvo i lesovodstvo cited in n. 29).

56. The eminent Russian jurist Lev Petrazhitskii in effect implies this in “Obychnoe pravo i zhenskii vopros,” Pravo, 1899, no. 18, cols. 901-12