Statutes mortgage relations legal regulation in Grand Duchy of Lithuania

The article deals with Statutes regulating real and movable property mortgage relations in Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The author draws attention to feudal civil law transforming into bourgeois law in the XVI century. It was the time when bourgeois law norms and institutes regulating civil law relations appeared. It is pointed out that legal lien and legal terminology were well developed, the legislative language was clear and explicit. The legal lien principles of Grand Duchy of Lithuania and real and movable property mortgage types are considered. The article focuses on the Statute of 1588 regulating such a new type of mortgage as mortgage of real property. One of the main principle of mortgage law is the principle of credit provision. Judicial Offices controlled the compliance of Agreements with an actual cost of mortgaged property. In other words the sum of money taken on the security of estate or other property had to comply with its cost. In the case if a creditor ignored these terms he lost money transmitted over the mortgaged property. Since there could be borrowed money from different creditors within recording mortgage of the same property, the law ensured the preferential right for the creditor made before others a note in the court register in the area where debt-ridden estate was located. Essentially, it was the realization of the principle called «the first in time, the best according to the law». It should be stressed that statutory legislation composes provisions that protected the debtor. The Statute of 1588 distinguishes the insolvency, which appeared due to the debtor’s fault and the insolvency, which appeared due to reasons independent of the debtor. The latter were provided the protection from creditors through the issuance of «the iron sheet», which gave them deferment of the debt payment. In the case of the debtor’s death during the validity of «the iron sheet» the creditor obtained the right to exact his money from the property of deceased debtor. The law also protected the creditor in the case of violent ouster of mortgaged property without payment of the debt. A mortgager, who violated the Agreement, was to return the property and pay a fine to the victim and state for the committed violence. The author draws attention to both mortgagee and mortgager’s interests being legally defended. The article deals with the legislative requirements for the performance of the Agreement and legal consequences as a result of the breach of its terms.