ABSTRACT

On 9 May 1780 the Court of Friesland passed judgment in the case of Metdina Sijpkens vs. the Governors of the Widows’ Pension Fund of the city of Leeuwarden.1 The point of litigation that the Court had to decide was whether the plaintiff was a widow or not. For Metdina Sijpkens, who lived at Eexta in the province of Groningen, it was a very important decision, for if the Court decided she was a widow, the defendants would have to pay her an annuity proportionate to the five shares her late husband had taken out in the pension fund for her benefit. The defendants on the other hand argued that the plaintiff could not be a widow. They based their argument on the fact that at the moment her husband died in Batavia, Metdina Sijpkens was suing him for a divorce on account of his adultery. For this argument they referred to the Praelectiones by Ulric Huber (163693),2 undoubtedly the most famous jurisconsult and professor at law Friesland ever had. In this work Huber had argued that adultery in itself dissolves a marriage.3 On this ground the Governors were of the opinion that Metdina Sijpkens’ marriage was already dissolved through the adultery of her husband. Therefore she was a divorcée and not a widow when her husband died, and consequently they were not obliged to pay her.4 When the Court gave judgment on 9 May 1780, it decided in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants were obliged to recognize her as a widow and to pay her the annual endowment beginning from the moment her husband had died.5