Karl Theodor von Inama-Sternegg · 1876
Inama-Sternegg’s review of Carl Knies’s treatment of credit assesses the contribution of economic inquiry to jurisprudence. Its opening praise establishes the expectations against which the installment is judged:
Es gereicht uns zu besonderem Vergnügen, den Lesern die Fortsetzung der wahrhaft mustergiltigen Untersuchungen von Knies über Geld und Credit anzeigen zu können.
English translation: It affords us particular pleasure to be able to announce to our readers the continuation of Knies's truly exemplary investigations on money and credit.
The central methodological claim concerns the reciprocal relationship between economic development and law. Credit law arises from economic conditions, but its origins do not exhaust its significance: legal arrangements subsequently shape the transactions they regulate. Referring to the legal order, Inama-Sternegg writes:
Wenngleich eine Folge, wird sie dann auch zu einer Ursache, und auch als Folge ist sie kein Product nur ökonomischer Vorbedingungen.
English translation: Although a consequence, it then becomes a cause as well, and even as a consequence it is not a product of economic preconditions alone.
This position resists both the depreciation of state action and the exaggeration of law’s capacity to determine economic life. Legal institutions belong to a broader cultural development, while their practical effects require economic investigation. The review values Knies’s combination of conceptual precision, historical understanding, and attention to commercial needs. Institutional adaptation is necessary, but novelty in credit practice does not itself justify unrestricted acceptance.
Praise is qualified by criticism of the volume’s division. Knies has so far examined credit’s effects on prices, leaving other consequences for a continuation. Inama-Sternegg postpones his assessment of that analysis until its legal implications can be considered within the completed argument. The division prevents readers from fully testing the foundational propositions against their consequences for credit law and makes this installment less satisfying as a whole than the earlier treatment of money.
The substantive discussion follows two directions: legal conditions influence credit, and the requirements of credit encourage particular legal forms. Their distinction does not dissolve their interdependence. In the passage from Knies reproduced by the reviewer:
Der Zusammenhang bleibt wirksam, auch wenn man zwischen den Ergebnissen für die Creditgeschäfte aus allgemeinen Bedürfnissen der Rechtsordnung, und Ergebnissen für die Rechtsordnung aus besonderen Bedürfnissen des Creditverkehrs zu unterscheiden hat.
English translation: The connection remains operative even when one has to distinguish between the results for credit transactions arising from the general needs of the legal order, and the results for the legal order arising from the particular needs of credit dealings.
In the first direction, constitutional restraints on arbitrary power and impartial judicial administration are especially important because credit creates obligations extending into an uncertain future. Rules governing majority, women’s contractual capacity, occupational freedom, settlement, land ownership, and bills of exchange determine access to transactions. Formal requirements and fiscal charges also affect the extent and intensity of credit.
Public bodies and corporate legal persons influence competition for capital. State borrowing has distinctive consequences because governments command powers unavailable to private borrowers. Compulsory loans can displace competing demands directly; voluntary public loans may offer advantages that private borrowers, limited by returns on their investments, cannot match. Legal authority therefore helps determine the allocation of capital.
In the second direction, the demand for reliable repayment produces institutions that secure claims and facilitate their exercise. Disposable capital alone does not make its owner willing to lend; confidence in enforcement also matters. The review follows Knies through pledge and retention rights, bills of exchange, and securities, praising his willingness to challenge established juristic positions, including an uncompromising preference for creditor enforcement at the debtor’s ruin.
Banknotes provide the clearest example of economic function complicating legal classification. Knies rejects their exclusive identification with either paper money or bearer securities. A banknote combines a private monetary claim with payment functions supported by special public-law provisions. Its circulation requires a distinctive connection between the note and the claim. Legal-tender status strengthens its monetary character, yet suspension of redemption does not eliminate the underlying private obligation: Knies treats suspension as a moratorium. The analysis preserves this composite structure rather than reducing the instrument to one function.
Brief discussions of cheque law, interest legislation, debtor protection, cooperatives, and insolvency lead to the concluding appeal for closer exchange between economics and jurisprudence. The review’s emphasis is methodological: historically existing credit cannot be understood apart from law, while legal analysis must engage economic findings. Cooperation between the disciplines clarifies the institutional ordering of economic life without abolishing their distinct methods.
This work was divided into 1 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 1 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian