Frisii cur dicant opbinden?’ – Dierschade in de Friese Landsordonnantie

in Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'Histoire du Droit / The Legal History Review
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?


In case someone else’s cattle damaged a field, in the law of the province of Friesland as in the Republic of the United Netherlands, art. 2,3,3 of the general provincial statute (the ‘Landsordonnantie’, L.O.) overrides the Roman rule of D. 9,2,39,1. Art. 2,3,3 L.O. (both of 1602 and 1723) allows those who suffer damage to retain (opbinden) this cattle until their owner has compensated the caused damage, contrary to Roman law which forbids inclusion. In the handwritten comments to art. 2,3,3 L.O., the juridical meaning of the term opbinden is explained. According to the manuscript ‘Saeckma’ opbinden should not be interpreted as a lien, but has the function to allow to feed the cattle. The other manuscripts, on the other hand, indeed interpret opbinden as a lien. The legal works on agrarian law also follow this interpretation and elaborate it moreover in a comparative way. Where Gerhard Feltman and Paulus Cornelis Hoynck van Papendrecht point to a mere Frisian custom as explanation for the opbinden, Christiaan Hendrik Trotz tries to give reasons for opbinden as something specific Frisian.




L.O. (1602) 2,3,2: ‘Item wie den anderen schade doet met sijn beesten zal de schade in maten als hem overghewesen wordt betalen. Ende doet hy ander-werven boven verbiedinghe alsodanighe zal hij dubbeld betalen’. In één handschrift worden de twee artikelen met een handschriftelijke accolade met de woorden ‘schade door beesten’ met elkaar verbonden (zie Leeuwarden, Tresoar, Statuten, ordonnantiën ende costumen van Frieslandt,1091 R).


*Nicolaus de Tudeschis, Commentaria in quartum & quintum decretalium libros, Venetiis 1617, p. 215. De verwijzing naar dit commentaar is overigens ook te vinden in decisio 136 van Matthias Colerus (ca. 1530–1587). In de door het Hs. Regneri genoemde decisio 169 wordt naar decisio 136 verwezen. Zie Colerus, Decisiones Germaniae (supra, n. 53), c. 169 met een verwijzing naar c. 136.


Hamerster, Naukeurige en duidelyke verklaring (supra, n. 67), p. 84.


Voorda, Dictata ad ius hodiernum (supra, n. 13), p. 451.


Trotz, Ius Agrarum (supra, n. 99), p. 638.


Trotz, Ius Agrarum (supra, n. 99), p. 639–640.


Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 4 4 1
Full Text Views 2 2 2
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0