Abstract
Regulations and judicial practice regarding divisions of so-called zadrugas (extended families, common among South Slavs) during the first reign of Princes Miloš and Mihailo Obrenović are subject of this paper. It is also pointed to nonrecognition of zadruga' s female members rights of successions in judicial practice, as a means of preventing partial dissolutions of patriarchal families. Namely, denial of women' s property rights contributes to preserving wholeness of zadrugas, as women would leave their families after marriage and at that point they would single out their shares in zadruga' s property. In the second half of the 1830s divisions of zadrugas became increasingly common. Attemps that had been made to diminish widespread fragmentation of zadruga' s estate and decrease frequency of dissolution of extended families in legislation and judicial practice are examined in this paper. However, strict punishments could not stop divisions of traditional rural families, as they were in sharp contrast to market economy, prevailing private property and entire social-economic progress in 19th century.
Highlights
Regulations and judicial practice regarding divisions of so-called zadrugas during the first reign of Princes Miloš and Mihailo Obrenović are subject of this paper
It is pointed to nonrecognition of zadrugas female members rights of successions in judicial practice, as a means of preventing partial dissolutions of patriarchal families
Denial of womens property rights contributes to preserving wholeness of zadrugas, as women would leave their families after marriage and at that point they would single out their shares in zadrugas property
Summary
Потпуне и делимичне деобе породичних задруга су се за време прве владавине кнеза Милоша Обреновића најпре одвијале према обичајноправним правилима. Након што сеоски кнез упозна кнежинског кнеза са разлозима деобе, он ће писмени извештај о стању спора заједно са деобним странкама упутити магистрату, као суду надлежном да решава о развргнућу породичне заједнице.[5] Узроци због којих се задругари деле били су релевантни на суду једино ако је деобни процес покренут након доношења наведене наредбе. Овом наредбом је пооштрена деобна процедура у односу на претходну донету две године раније, с обзиром на то да је одлучивање о деоби подигнуто на највиши ниво, јер уместо нахијских кнезова о подели решава кнез Милош као врховна власт у земљи. У другом пак случају Ваљевски нахијски суд се, додуше, на молбу задругара обратио књазу Милошу као врховном судији, али само зато што је породична имовина неправедно расподељена. Књаз Милош интервенисао је у деобном поступку тек по изјављеном незадовољству на првобитну поделу, а не као обавезан и коначан арбитар у свакој парници за развргнуће породичне задруге како то налаже наредба из 1828. године
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
