Florence Stephens became the owner of Huseby bruk, an industry located in Småland, 1934 while she was just over 50 years old, she inherited it from her late father. Huseby bruk, while under the ownership her father Huseby bruk had a thriving economy and expanded. When he died his daughter Florence Stephens took over. Missing formal education regarding how to manage an industry led to a declining economy and later one of the bigger economic scandals in the county. One of the outcomes of the scandal was that Florence Stephens was declared a legally incompetent person and she remained so in 19 years. This study aims to fill in the gaps of studies regarding her attempts to regain her legal competence and in the legal dispute about arranging an administrator for Florence Stephens that followed. Further this study analyzes her right of possession to Huseby bruk and if she had all the rights she was entitled. The source material chosen for this study is documents left over from her cases located at Linnéuniversitetet in the Huseby archives. The result reached by the study was that Florence Stephens regained her legally competence 1976 which led to a response from Alvesta chief guardian requesting that this only happens if an administrator is assigned. This lead to a long lawsuit ending in October 1978. Regarding her possession of Huseby have the study concluded that she still had the rights but they were not absolute.

The aim of the thesis is to clarify the landlord’s rights and obligations towards the tenant when a case of emergency occurs in the tenant’s apartment. What can a landlord do to get access to the tenant’s apartment when a case of emergency occurs? Will the landlord be liable if he damages any property of the tenant during the time in the apartment? These are some of the questions that we will answer. The problem is guided by two main principles: the landlord’s right of possession of the apartment and also the tenant’s right of use of the same property. The conflict between these two principles and between the interests of the landlord and the tenant is the foundation of this problem. Case of emergencies in an apartment are not regulated in Swedish law. Therefore, we have chosen to do comparisons to other forms of similar situations, which already are regulated in the law. These comparisons are made to see if similar rules can be applicated to cases of emergencies in the tenant’s apartment. In addition to this, we have also used case law, which treats similar situations, to see if the principles from these cases also can be applicated in case of emergencies in the tenant’s apartment. / Uppsatsens syfte är att klargöra hur hyresvärdens rättigheter och skyldigheter gentemot hyresgästen regleras vid en nödsituation i hyresgästens lägenhet. Frågor som vi kommer att försöka svara på är bl a: hur långt får hyresvärden gå när han bereder sig tillträde till hyresgästens lägenhet? Blir han ersättningsskyldig om han skulle skada hyresgästens egendom då en nödsituation föreligger? Problemet är utöver ett obligationsrättsligt, även ett sakrättsligt problem. De sakrättsliga principer som ligger till grund för problemet är äganderätten och nyttjanderätten. I vårt fall kommer dessa till uttryck genom att hyresvärden, som har äganderätten till sin egendom, upplåter nyttjanderätten av sin egendom till hyresgästens förmån. Det här förhållandet mellan hyresvärden och hyresgästen är en av orsakerna till att det uppstår ett problem vid hyresvärdens tillträde till lägenheten vid en nödsituation. Eftersom nödsituationer inte är reglerade i 12 kap. 26 § Jordabalken har vi valt att göra jämförelser med andra typer av situationer som finns reglerade i lagen. Dessa är: mindre brådskande förbättringsarbete och annat arbete, brådskande förbättringsarbete och bekämpning av ohyra i hyresgästens lägenhet. Dessa jämförelser görs för att utreda vilka regler som kan tänkas tillämpas då en nödsituation föreligger. För att uppfylla syftet har vi även tagit hjälp av ett par äldre rättsfall som behandlar områden som har nära anknytning till vårt problem.

O campo brasileiro apresenta um campesinato muito diverso, formado por sujeitos sociais que cultivam a terra com a família aumentando a oferta de alimentos na cidade. O presente trabalho enfatiza os camponeses posseiros que se caracterizam pelo cultivo familiar de uma pequena extensão de terra, mas sem o direito de propriedade assegurado. Por conseguinte, a presente dissertação procura discutir o embate entre o direito de posse e o direito absoluto de propriedade privada da terra consagrado pela Lei de Terras de 1850 como única forma de apropriação territorial no Brasil, a partir das comunidades quilombolas da Peropava e da Poça, localizadas no Vale do Ribeira paulista, por se tratar de populações tradicionais que vivem há mais de um século nesses territórios cultivando a terra sob o regime consuetudinário de transmissão hereditária da terra, preservando um modo de vida sócio-cultural herdado de sua ancestralidade. Deve-se notar que os posseiros quilombolas têm o direito de propriedade assegurado pela Constituição Federal de 1988, notadamente em seu art. 68 do Ato das Disposições Constitucionais Transitórias. O Texto Magno prescreve o reconhecimento do direito de posse quilombola mediante autodefinição do grupo como descendente de escravos africanos. No entanto, muitos quilombos ainda não foram reconhecidos pelo Poder Público, o qual está impregnado de forças contrárias ao cumprimento constitucional. Vale atentar que os camponeses lutam pelo reconhecimento e pelo título de propriedade para evitar a expropriação por parte daqueles que só aceitam como legítima a propriedade privada ostentada sob a égide de um título. / The Brazilian countryside has a very diverse peasantry, formed by social actors who cultivate the land with their families by increasing the supply of food in the city. This work emphasizes the peasant squatters who grow a small tract of land with their families, but without the right to property secured. Therefore, this dissertation discusses the clash between the right of occupation of the peasants (tenure) and the absolute right of private ownership of land - established by the Land Law of 1850 as the only form of land ownership in Brazil, from the maroons communities of the Peropava and of the Poça, localized in the Ribeira Valley in São Paulo, because they are traditional populations who live there for more than a century cultivating the land under customary rules of inheritance of the land, preserving a way of life social-cultural legacy of their ancestry. It should be noted that the maroons squatters have the right to property secured by the Constitution of 1988, particularly in its art. 68 of the Transitory Constitutional Provisions Act. The Great Text prescribes the recognition of the maroon tenure by self-definition as the group descended from African slaves. However, many Maroons werent still recognized by the government that is permeated by forces opposed to constitutional execution. It should be given attention that the peasants fight for recognition and for a title of properity to avoid expropriation by those who only accept as legitimate the private property who has a title.

O campo brasileiro apresenta um campesinato muito diverso, formado por sujeitos sociais que cultivam a terra com a família aumentando a oferta de alimentos na cidade. O presente trabalho enfatiza os camponeses posseiros que se caracterizam pelo cultivo familiar de uma pequena extensão de terra, mas sem o direito de propriedade assegurado. Por conseguinte, a presente dissertação procura discutir o embate entre o direito de posse e o direito absoluto de propriedade privada da terra consagrado pela Lei de Terras de 1850 como única forma de apropriação territorial no Brasil, a partir das comunidades quilombolas da Peropava e da Poça, localizadas no Vale do Ribeira paulista, por se tratar de populações tradicionais que vivem há mais de um século nesses territórios cultivando a terra sob o regime consuetudinário de transmissão hereditária da terra, preservando um modo de vida sócio-cultural herdado de sua ancestralidade. Deve-se notar que os posseiros quilombolas têm o direito de propriedade assegurado pela Constituição Federal de 1988, notadamente em seu art. 68 do Ato das Disposições Constitucionais Transitórias. O Texto Magno prescreve o reconhecimento do direito de posse quilombola mediante autodefinição do grupo como descendente de escravos africanos. No entanto, muitos quilombos ainda não foram reconhecidos pelo Poder Público, o qual está impregnado de forças contrárias ao cumprimento constitucional. Vale atentar que os camponeses lutam pelo reconhecimento e pelo título de propriedade para evitar a expropriação por parte daqueles que só aceitam como legítima a propriedade privada ostentada sob a égide de um título. / The Brazilian countryside has a very diverse peasantry, formed by social actors who cultivate the land with their families by increasing the supply of food in the city. This work emphasizes the peasant squatters who grow a small tract of land with their families, but without the right to property secured. Therefore, this dissertation discusses the clash between the right of occupation of the peasants (tenure) and the absolute right of private ownership of land - established by the Land Law of 1850 as the only form of land ownership in Brazil, from the maroons communities of the Peropava and of the Poça, localized in the Ribeira Valley in São Paulo, because they are traditional populations who live there for more than a century cultivating the land under customary rules of inheritance of the land, preserving a way of life social-cultural legacy of their ancestry. It should be noted that the maroons squatters have the right to property secured by the Constitution of 1988, particularly in its art. 68 of the Transitory Constitutional Provisions Act. The Great Text prescribes the recognition of the maroon tenure by self-definition as the group descended from African slaves. However, many Maroons werent still recognized by the government that is permeated by forces opposed to constitutional execution. It should be given attention that the peasants fight for recognition and for a title of properity to avoid expropriation by those who only accept as legitimate the private property who has a title.

Syftet med detta arbete är att, dels ur ett fastighetsrättsligt perspektiv, dels ett folkrättsligt perspektiv, utreda om Sveriges urbefolkning samerna kan sägas ha förvärvat en äganderätt till marken i Lappland enligt svensk rätt, eller om detta enbart handlar om en bruksrätt inkluderande renskötsel, jakt och fiske. Vad gäller det fastighetsrättsliga perspektivet har samerna haft en mycket stark fastighetsrättslig ställning på 1600- och 1700-talet. Då behandlades samernas lappskatteland som sådan skattejord, som skattebönderna sedermera genom lagstiftning automatiskt förvärvade full äganderätt till. Så skedde dock inte för samernas del. I stället trängdes de undan från stora delar av sina ursprungliga marker på grund av bl.a. kolonisation, exploateringsintressen, samt nedvärdering av nomadkulturen. Från att ha varit i stor majoritet blev de en minoritet på sina gamla marker. Dessa marker har sedermera kommit att betraktas som kronojord i statens ägo, vilket innebär en stor förskjutning av samernas fastighetsrättliga ställning inom loppet av fyra sekler. Gällande rätt garanterar inte samer som är medlemmar av en sameby någon starkare rätt än en bruksrätt, som till vissa delar är svagare än vad som gäller för andra bruksrättsinnehavare i Sverige. Praxis utesluter emellertid inte att renskötselrätten kan ha gett upphov till äganderätt, särskilt i nordligaste Sverige. Att samerna haft svårt att hävda sin äganderätt kan bero på att rättssystemet inte har haft en egentlig förståelse för rennäringens speciella förutsättningar, vilket gör att exempelvis beviskraven blir höga att nå upp till. Min slutsats är dock att övertygande bevis finns för att samerna har förvärvat en äganderätt, åtminstone till statlig kronomark i Lappland, oavsett om lagstiftningen för närvarande tillerkänner dem detta eller ej. Vad gäller vinterbetesmarker i Lappland föreligger inte lika starka bevis för att en äganderätt skulle ha uppstått, men däremot en bruksrätt som är starkare än dagens lagstiftning tillerkänner samerna. Vad gäller det folkrättsliga perspektivet ger de konventioner Sverige ingått inte uttryckligen stöd för att samernas markrättigheter skall erkännas, och svensk lagstiftning får sägas uppfylla de minimikrav de ställer. Sverige har dock fått internationell kritik för att inte ha funnit en lösning på och förbättrat rättssäkerheten angående samiska markrättigheter. Inte heller har Sverige ratificerat ILO-konvention nr. 169 om ursprungsfolk och stamfolk i självstyrande länder. Anledningen är just att bestämmelser som reglerar markrättigheter inte har ansetts förenliga med svenska rättsförhållanden. Man kan dock hoppas på att Sverige framöver kommer att ta intryck av den internationella utvecklingen vad gäller erkännande av urbefolkningars markanspråk. / The aim of this thesis is to examine whether the Sami people, who is an indigenous people living in the north of Sweden, could have acquired ownership of land areas in Lapland according to Swedish law, or whether they only have a right to use the land that they traditionally occupy for reindeer breeding, hunting and fishing. The question is dealt with from a land law as well as an international law approach. Concerning the land law approach, the Sami people has had a very strong position close to ownership during the 17th and 18th centuries. At that time, the Samis paid tax for their lands, which meant that they were not considered to belong to the Crown, but were treated in the same way as the independent farmers’ lands. However, while the farmers through a declaration from the King in 1789 automatically achieved full ownership of their lands, the Sami people did not. Instead, the Samis were pressed back from large parts of their original territory because of colonisation, exploitation and depreciation of their nomadic way of living. Once a majority, they found themselves a minority in their own land and their territory had become the Crown’s property. Undoubtedly, there has been an extraordinary shifting of the Sami people’s land rights within four centuries. Current law does only guarantee the members of the Sami villages the right to use land for reindeer breeding, hunting and fishing, and this right is in some aspects even weaker than that of other Swedish citizens with similar rights. Still, case law does not exclude the possibility that reindeer breeding could have originated right of ownership, especially in Lapland. My findings on this area are that there is convincing evidence that the Sami people has acquired right of ownership on the lands which they traditionally occupy all year around. On the lands that they share with others, they have a strong right to use the land during the winter, probably stronger than the legislation provides for. What concerns the international law approach, Swedish legislation does fulfil the minimum demands according to the conventions the country has ratified. Still, Sweden has been criticized of not finding a balanced solution to and improving legal certainty on Sami land rights. Sweden has not ratified the ILO Convention no. 169 con-cerning indigenous and tribal peoples in independent countries. The reason for this is mainly the article which aims at strengthening the indigenous peoples’ land rights, which Sweden does not find compatible with national law. Still, one can hope that the ongoing international development on the area will show the way, and that Sweden will pay attention to it in future legislation.

<p>Syftet med detta arbete är att, dels ur ett fastighetsrättsligt perspektiv, dels ett folkrättsligt perspektiv, utreda om Sveriges urbefolkning samerna kan sägas ha förvärvat en äganderätt till marken i Lappland enligt svensk rätt, eller om detta enbart handlar om en bruksrätt inkluderande renskötsel, jakt och fiske.</p><p>Vad gäller det fastighetsrättsliga perspektivet har samerna haft en mycket stark fastighetsrättslig ställning på 1600- och 1700-talet. Då behandlades samernas lappskatteland som sådan skattejord, som skattebönderna sedermera genom lagstiftning automatiskt förvärvade full äganderätt till. Så skedde dock inte för samernas del. I stället trängdes de undan från stora delar av sina ursprungliga marker på grund av bl.a. kolonisation, exploateringsintressen, samt nedvärdering av nomadkulturen. Från att ha varit i stor majoritet blev de en minoritet på sina gamla marker. Dessa marker har sedermera kommit att betraktas som kronojord i statens ägo, vilket innebär en stor förskjutning av samernas fastighetsrättliga ställning inom loppet av fyra sekler.</p><p>Gällande rätt garanterar inte samer som är medlemmar av en sameby någon starkare rätt än en bruksrätt, som till vissa delar är svagare än vad som gäller för andra bruksrättsinnehavare i Sverige. Praxis utesluter emellertid inte att renskötselrätten kan ha gett upphov till äganderätt, särskilt i nordligaste Sverige. Att samerna haft svårt att hävda sin äganderätt kan bero på att rättssystemet inte har haft en egentlig förståelse för rennäringens speciella förutsättningar, vilket gör att exempelvis beviskraven blir höga att nå upp till. Min slutsats är dock att övertygande bevis finns för att samerna har förvärvat en äganderätt, åtminstone till statlig kronomark i Lappland, oavsett om lagstiftningen för närvarande tillerkänner dem detta eller ej. Vad gäller vinterbetesmarker i Lappland föreligger inte lika starka bevis för att en äganderätt skulle ha uppstått, men däremot en bruksrätt som är starkare än dagens lagstiftning tillerkänner samerna.</p><p>Vad gäller det folkrättsliga perspektivet ger de konventioner Sverige ingått inte uttryckligen stöd för att samernas markrättigheter skall erkännas, och svensk lagstiftning får sägas uppfylla de minimikrav de ställer. Sverige har dock fått internationell kritik för att inte ha funnit en lösning på och förbättrat rättssäkerheten angående samiska markrättigheter. Inte heller har Sverige ratificerat ILO-konvention nr. 169 om ursprungsfolk och stamfolk i självstyrande länder. Anledningen är just att bestämmelser som reglerar markrättigheter inte har ansetts förenliga med svenska rättsförhållanden. Man kan dock hoppas på att Sverige framöver kommer att ta intryck av den internationella utvecklingen vad gäller erkännande av urbefolkningars markanspråk.</p> / <p>The aim of this thesis is to examine whether the Sami people, who is an indigenous people living in the north of Sweden, could have acquired ownership of land areas in Lapland according to Swedish law, or whether they only have a right to use the land that they traditionally occupy for reindeer breeding, hunting and fishing. The question is dealt with from a land law as well as an international law approach.</p><p>Concerning the land law approach, the Sami people has had a very strong position close to ownership during the 17th and 18th centuries. At that time, the Samis paid tax for their lands, which meant that they were not considered to belong to the Crown, but were treated in the same way as the independent farmers’ lands. However, while the farmers through a declaration from the King in 1789 automatically achieved full ownership of their lands, the Sami people did not. Instead, the Samis were pressed back from large parts of their original territory because of colonisation, exploitation and depreciation of their nomadic way of living. Once a majority, they found themselves a minority in their own land and their territory had become the Crown’s property. Undoubtedly, there has been an extraordinary shifting of the Sami people’s land rights within four centuries.</p><p>Current law does only guarantee the members of the Sami villages the right to use land for reindeer breeding, hunting and fishing, and this right is in some aspects even weaker than that of other Swedish citizens with similar rights. Still, case law does not exclude the possibility that reindeer breeding could have originated right of ownership, especially in Lapland. My findings on this area are that there is convincing evidence that the Sami people has acquired right of ownership on the lands which they traditionally occupy all year around. On the lands that they share with others, they have a strong right to use the land during the winter, probably stronger than the legislation provides for.</p><p>What concerns the international law approach, Swedish legislation does fulfil the minimum demands according to the conventions the country has ratified. Still, Sweden has been criticized of not finding a balanced solution to and improving legal certainty on Sami land rights. Sweden has not ratified the ILO Convention no. 169 con-cerning indigenous and tribal peoples in independent countries. The reason for this is mainly the article which aims at strengthening the indigenous peoples’ land rights, which Sweden does not find compatible with national law. Still, one can hope that the ongoing international development on the area will show the way, and that Sweden will pay attention to it in future legislation.</p>