Pro Memorie - Volume 21, Issue 1, 2019

Summary

This article is an interview with Hilde Symoens, the fifteenth in a series of Pro Memorie talks with retired Dutch and Belgian legal historians. Born in Brussels in 1943, Hilde Symoens spent part of her youth in Congo, where her parents, still in the colonial era, worked as teachers, She returned with her mother to Belgium in 1958 and started her university studies at Ghent University in 1960. As her father kept on being responsible for the Belgian schools in decolonized Congo, the colonial experience and the more general idea that the world was more than just the village one lives in, were important for her personal view of the world. At Ghent University, Hilde Symoens studied history and engaged in a PhD project on the Low Countries students at the late medieval and early modern university of Orléans. It was the start of a whole scientific career on the prosopography and the social roles of jurists. As a historian, not a jurist herself, she studied particularly ‘external legal history’. She married a Ghent professor of medicine, Leo De Ridder, was full professor at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and at Ghent University. She was one of the first women making career as history professor and talks on the incomprehension she met on her way.

Summary

The borrower’s liability, as stated in article 7A:1781 section 1 of the Dutch Civil Code, differs from the Roman law tradition. In Justinian and Medieval Roman law the borrower’s liability was determined in accordance with the utility principle. As a consequence, the borrower was in some cases even without fault liable for theft. Roman law still played a role in the development towards the rule in the Dutch Civil Code, but ultimately the influence of the French Civil Code turned out to be stronger and has to be considered as the turning point in the interpretation of the borrower’s liability. The duty of care of a borrower comprise now merely due diligence (‘zorg van een goed huisvader’). Judges make a proper assessment to determine the liability of the borrower, taking into account the interests of the parties, the obligations of the parties and the circumstances.

Summary

This contribution studies the cessio bonorum of painter Rembrandt van Rhijn in relation to the relevant rules and institutions of Amsterdam.

In the Rembrandt case the procedural rules on the cessio bonorum were followed to a large extend. In regard to the beweysinge, a few weeks before the application for the cessio, it seems more convincing that it should be interpreted as a promise than as a conveyance of the house he owned. This new perspective on the beweysinge, however, does not alter the fact that it seems likely that there was a conflict between the Orphans Chamber (serving the interests of Titus) and the Insolvency Chamber (serving the interests of the creditors, and among them especially the former burgomaster Cornelis Witsen). Arguments for this are derived from: 1) the new bylaw issued by the Orphans Chamber shortly after Rembrandt’s application for the cessio, 2) the appointment of the renowned lawyer Louis Crayers as guardian of Titus (instead of Jan Verwout), and 3) the position of Titus’ preferential claim in the concursus creditorum. Crenshaw has stated that this conflict was decided by the personal influence of Cornelis Witsen. This contribution defends that Witsen only could enforce the sale of the house because of the institutional and political power structures within the city government. Witsen belonged to the powerful reigning faction of Cornelis de Graeff, whereas the majority of the officials in the Orphans Chamber belonged to the ‘political opposition’. In the end it was especially Witsen who profited from the sale (at the expense of Titus).

Summary

This contribution studies the cessio bonorum of painter Rembrandt van Rhijn in relation to the relevant rules and institutions of Amsterdam. In the Rembrandt case the procedural rules on the cessio bonorum were followed to a large extend. In regard to the beweysinge, a few weeks before the application for the cessio, it seems more convincing that it should be interpreted as a promise than as a conveyance of the house he owned. This new perspective on the beweysinge, however, does not alter the fact that it seems likely that there was a conflict between the Orphans Chamber (serving the interests of Titus) and the Insolvency Chamber (serving the interests of the creditors, and among them especially the former burgomaster Cornelis Witsen). Arguments for this are derived from: 1) the new bylaw issued by the Orphans Chamber shortly after Rembrandt’s application for the cessio, 2) the appointment of the renowned lawyer Louis Crayers as guardian of Titus (instead of Jan Verwout), and 3) the position of Titus’ preferential claim in the concursus creditorum. Crenshaw has stated that this conflict was decided by the personal influence of Cornelis Witsen. This contribution defends that Witsen only could enforce the sale of the house because of the institutional and political power structures within the city government. Witsen belonged to the powerful reigning faction of Cornelis de Graeff, whereas the majority of the officials in the Orphans Chamber belonged to the ‘political opposition’. In the end it was especially Witsen who profited from the sale (at the expense of Titus).

Summary

In this contribution, the life and constitutional views of Louis Wodon (1868-1946) are exposed. Raised in a Brussels family of liberal political persuasion, Wodon was appointed a full professor at ULB in 1906, where he taught courses on labour law, sociology and administrative law. Simultaneously, he careered as a civil servant in the Ministry of Economic Affairs. As Head of Staff of the King between 1926 and 1938, Wodon advised Albert I and Leopold III to restore law and order, so as to defeat the breakdown of authority that plagued the political world. He interpreted the Constitution in such a way as to leave a maximum of powers to the King, vigorous measures by individual government members and a minimum role to Parliament. His views should be seen in the context of a reactionary antidemocratic movement which came into vogue after World War I.