Summary

This article focuses on the references (allegations) made by the lawyers in a selected number of cases to Roman and customary law as well as to court decisions when arguing their case. The analysis focuses on three similar civil litigation records from the Court of Friesland from 1716, 1718 and 1720. Network analysis was used to examine whether certain sources were more dominant (i.e. more central) in the network than others and to explore the relationship between the references. The lawyers in the three cases from the Court of Friesland appear to have used some references in common when arguing whether security rights (i.e. mortgages) included a right of pursuit and whether the auctioneer could recover the object if the buyer failed to pay.

中文翻译：

---

法律史上的网络分析：弗里斯兰法院的一个例子：对利益的评论

概括

本文重点关注律师在选定数量的案件中对罗马法和习惯法以及法院判决的引用（指控）。分析侧重于 1716 年、1718 年和 1720 年弗里斯兰法院的三个类似民事诉讼记录。使用网络分析来检查某些来源是否比其他来源在网络中更占主导地位（即更中心），并探索两者之间的关系参考。弗里斯兰法院的三个案件中的律师在争论担保权（即抵押权）是否包括追偿权以及如果买受人不付款时拍卖人是否可以收回标的物时，似乎使用了一些共同的参考。