Domaraczki quondam tenutarii villae Wyanczkowicze iure tamen feodali ex nobili Anna Krieczowska procreati in bonis feodalibus ad castrum Iaroslav pertinentibus et villa Wy^ezkowicze, ratione reformationis matris eorundem filiarum et filiorum habuerant, receperunt, ") Christophorus et Raphael fratres de Pylcza viUam Mikvlicze ad Canczugam, quem nobilis Mikvliczsky lacobus successorio iure post suos antecessores tenet et possidet iure feudali, removendo illud ius feudale de prefata villa et hoc totum quidquid ipse lacobus et alii possessores obligati erant et sunt ipsis fratribus ratione feudi et possessionis dicte ville in serviciis et ceteris omnibus oneribus feodalibus iuxta veterera consvetudinem, eandem villam in jus polonicum convertunt ac uniunt, nobili Felici Żyenaczky advocato hereditario in Thryncza dederunt et donaverunt Qui quidem Felix predictum laeobum et alios quosvis predicte ville possessores de prefato feudo et villa predicta. tanquain eorum pronunc dominus de prefatis poterit exemcre vigore iuris sui superioratus. Inscr. vol. p. >') Z. 11. p. 96.
the Roslav region belonging to their vassals, so they did not belong to the land but as if they personally belonged to the heirs of the Jarosław region. We see this in the example of the peasant from Mikulice; This village was purchased by Jan Starzechowski from Feliks Ziemięcki, to whom the voivode of Bełzka, Pilecki, sold the village cum pleno iure. Meanwhile, the peasant scolded by Starzechoweki is taken under her protective wing by Magdalena Jarosławska, the voivode of Bełzka, who holds Starzechowski responsible for the peasant's mischief and proves that she is his superior, because the tribute village of Mikulice belongs to the Jarosław region. Moreover, she brought a lawsuit against Starzechowski for the evocation of vassals from Mikulice, obviously considering this evocation as an intrusion into her superior jurisdiction of the fief estate. Unfortunately, we do not know how the case, which took place in 1538 in the Przeworsk land court, was resolved. We provide below the content of the Przeworsk note explaining the dispute between Jarosławska and Starzechowski, and we assume that the former could not stand her claim to fiefdom, which was contrary to the spirit of land law, in the land court 16). We will only add here that the nobility, apparently wanting to avoid inconvenience and disputes with the Pilecki family, included appropriate clauses in transactions with them. And so, in 1535, Mikołaj Pilecki, voivode of Bełzka, had to sell Krzemienne, Halwigowa, Krzaczkowa and Malawa to Mikołaj of Felsztyn Odnowski,
") Albertus kmetho de Mykulicze subditus mag. Magdalenae de laroslaw Pallatinae Bełz. iudicialiter contra generos, Albertum Starzechowsky cittatum pro recepcione securis. Starzechowski ipsum Albertum kmethonem in Mykulycze non esse iurisdiccionis mag. Magdalenae de laroslaw sed loannis Starzechowsky haeredis dictae villae Mikulicze, ubi ipsa domina offerebat se probare iure suo quesito habere ius ad dictum kmethonem; et est sibi data dilatio ad documenta, quod ipse kmetho est iurisdictionis suae, ideo domine iudex volo videre huiusmodi documenta ipsius magnificae Magdalenae, ad que se traxit. Magdalena probando, quod ipsa sit domina ipsius et possessor sue superioritatis ville Mikulicze, uti ad opidum Kańczuga feodaliter pertinentis, ostendit et produxit inscriptionem diyisionis in act feodalem ad bona Kańczuga et esse ipsorum bonorum Mykulicze dominam magnificam Magdalenam, ideo iuxta Albertum hmethonem stat ipsa domina pro pena, uti iuxta subditum suum, petit itaque, ut Albertus Starzechowski, qui nihil iuris dominii et proprietatis ad Albertum kmethonem habet, ut ei ad propositionem cittationis respondeat.