Hofmark Obergangkofen

The Hofmark Obergangkofen was in the Duchy of Bavaria-Landshut , about ten kilometers southeast of the residential city of Landshut . It was first mentioned in the late Middle Ages and existed until 1848 when the municipality of Obergangkofen emerged from the Hofmark and some surrounding villages .

First traditions

In a dispute in 1600 a document mentioned by Duke Henry was issued on Friday by Martini in 1422 and in the former Hofmarksherrn Heinrich Frank and all subsequent owners of the Hofmark the low jurisdiction has been confirmed. This means that the Hofmark already existed in 1422 because only the previously existing rights were confirmed. The church next to the Hofmarkschloss is mentioned as a branch church with a cemetery in Fraunhofen in the registers of the Freising diocese as early as 1315 . This shows that a corresponding settlement with manorial rule already existed at this time, as there were also branch churches without cemeteries where there was no manorial seat.

The first surviving document related to the Hofmark is a pattern book from 1553 in which a Leonhard von Asch as guardian carried out a pattern for the underage Hofmark owners Wolfgang, Paul and Hansen Dietrichinger zu Obergänckchofen . In the list of court marks of the Erding court from 1558, Obergangkofen is named as the old court march, belonging to the children of Wolf Dietrich .

Konrad Achdorfer, mentioned in some documents from the years after 1400 as the owner of a seat in Gawnchhofen, has nothing to do with this Hofmark, whose Gangkofen is a castle fiefdom at the Gangkofen market in the Rottal.

scope

The property belonging to the Hofmark was not much, around 1553 it was just the building of the castle, a whole farm, the landlord, the blacksmith and three empty houses . The sacristan's property belonged to the church and therefore not to the Hofmark. Other on-site properties partly belonged to the Seligental monastery, Heilig-Geist-Spital Landshut, diocese Freising or to one of the surrounding local churches or to other jurisdictions such as Geisenhausen, Teisbach or Erding. The importance of higher jurisdiction by the Geisenhausen Nursing Court, which belonged to the cathedral chapter of Augsburg from 974 to 1605, is clearly visible in the church patronage of Bishop Ulrich von Augsburg and the large ceiling painting in the nave with the Battle of Lechfeld from 955 (book: Landkreis Vilsbiburg 1966). All owners recorded after 1550 had other possessions in addition to this Hofmark. In the case of the previous ones, this is at least to be assumed if the scope was not considerably larger before the Landshut War of Succession .

Some of the lords of the Hofmark then tried to increase the Hofmark through purchases or other means.

A register of subjects from 1671 has been preserved. At that time, the Hofmark consisted of eight properties, the ones mentioned in 1553 and the sacristans that had been bought since then, and a noble-free court.

It was only at the end of the 17th century that the Hofmark could really be successfully enlarged.

Until the Thirty Years War

In the inspection carried out in 1553, von Asch had only six men to inspect and he was able to equip one of them with a light-hearted and sidewör , but without a horse. He therefore asked that his foster sons be relieved of it, as had already happened before.

More is not known about the Dietrichinger, 1562 a Gregor zu Münichdorff is named as owner. His son Wolf Münich zu Münichdorff and Obern-Gänkhoven is in a similar situation to von Asch in 1583, in that he can only equip one man, this time with a horse. When Wolf Münich and Hans Albrecht von Khuttenau, Pfleger zu Osterhofen meet at the Landtag in Munich in 1593, they decide to swap their remote possessions. Kuttenau receives Obergangkofen and Münichdorffer takes the Hofmark Ramspauer in the Upper Palatinate. The exchange was made during the state parliament and was attested by six nobles. Von Kuttenau sold his exchanged Hofmark Obergangkofen on January 18, 1595 to Wilhelm Heisshammer .

In 1597 an ordinance was issued that all nobleman-free courts fall under the jurisdiction of the regional court if the owner is not capable of noblemanly freedom. The nobleman was capable of someone who was allowed to exercise the lower jurisdiction and thus belonged at least to the lower nobility . This was a problem for Wilhelm Heißhammer because, unlike the previous owners, he was not capable of noble freedom. Because of this, he led a dispute that lasted several years against the regional court over a noble-free court that came to Hofmark in the time of Wolf von Münich. In the case of lower jurisdiction, it was not only about the jurisdiction as such, but also about crowd money and work that the Hofmarks owner could demand from the court if he had lower jurisdiction over this court. In this context, Heißhammer argues that in the document issued in 1422, all holders of the Hofmark are entitled to lower jurisdiction. In 1609, however, it was finally decided that he did not participate in the freedom of noblemen and that he could therefore not exercise lower jurisdiction over this court.

After the death of Wilhelm Heißhammer in 1614, Michael Hipper, caretaker for Hohenschwangau and husband of Heißhammer's daughter Anna Maria Hofmarksherr.

During the Thirty Years War

The following changes of ownership may well have been caused by the unrest during the Thirty Years War .

Georg Hörmann, from 1571 to 1590 clerk and care administrator in Marquartstein and later electoral regimental council in Straubing , succeeded Hipper from 1617. Maria Hörmann, Georg's daughter, married Christoph Dürnitzl, mayor of Straubing, and took the Hofmark into his hands for a short time. After 1639 a Hans Siegmund von Leoprechting, Kastner zu Landau, is named as Hofmarkherr who bought the Hofmark and the sacristan's property. Then there was a dispute about the sacristan, because he had to perform less crowd services than the other subjects due to his previous membership in the church.

Around 1642/1643, the electoral official Johann Kristoph Schneck, caretaker of Ismaning, followed as lord of the court. Like Hot Hammer in earlier times, Schneck also tried unsuccessfully to maintain the lower jurisdiction over the aforementioned noble-free court, which his noble predecessor had as Hofmarkherr and Schneck was denied the purchase. Just like von Leoprechting, he was unsuccessful in attempting to increase the sexton's serpentine service. Schneck was lord of the court for several decades and was replaced by barber.

Johann German barber

Johann German Barbier, Hofrat in Munich came from a Munich patrician family, participated in the Reichstag in Regensburg in 1663 and was then envoy to the imperial court in Vienna. He was ennobled by Elector Ferdinand Maria in 1670/1671 , received the Hofmark and was awarded the Gängkhofen title. He was the only lord of the Hofmark who was able to expand the Hofmark extensively, so in 1674 he bought six entire courts with all rights including land and jurisdiction and other rights over a further 27 subjects in and around the Hofmark seat. The only reservation made by the elector was that he or one of his descendants must be able to buy back the sold property at any time without giving a reason.

Barbier died in 1686 without any descendants and in his will he made his sister Maria Elisabeth the universal heiress. His wife received the Hofmark for 24 years or until her death as a usufruct . After that, they should Hofmark as Fideikommiss pass to the eldest of the name Barbier. Friedrich von Edlmar, electoral councilor and rentmaster zu Straubing , the husband of Barbier's sister Maria Elisabeth, compensated the mother of Johann Anton Barbier from Munich, who was still underage, so that she ceded her son's rights to Edlmar. Johann German Barbier's widow received an annuity of 180 guilders annually instead of the usufruct and was more than happy with this regulation as the castle had to be repaired, which would have meant at least 1000 guilders.

Immediately after reaching the age of majority, Johann Anton Barbier objected to the regulation contrary to his will, the ensuing legal dispute lasted until 1712. In the course of this, the freedom of noblemen and thus the lower jurisdiction of the Edlmars was questioned.

From Edlmar

Jacob Anton von Edlmar, Regimentsrat and treasurer in Straubing , son of the late Frederick in 1693 was in comparison finally awarded the Hofmark of 4 June 1712th The Edlmar were raised to the baron status by Elector Max Emanuel in 1697 so that they were aristocratic and thus had the freedom of noblemen. Presumably Jacob Anton was transferred to Amberg in 1719 because he was rentmeister in Straubing until then and died in Amberg in 1731. His son and heir Josef Anton von Edlmar was regimental councilor in Amberg by 1734 at the latest .

On October 28, 1725, Elector Max Emanuel canceled the right of repurchase, which Ferdinand Maria had expressly reserved when selling it to Barbier.

In 1733, the court chamber demanded outstanding taxes and duties retrospectively from 1686. Apparently none of the contracting parties felt responsible for paying these taxes during the will dispute. The subjects undertook to pay off their debt within the next four years, although none of them had already been to his farm in 1686, so none of the dispute was known or owed . However, in 1792 the debt was only partially paid.

In 1741 the brother of Josef Anton, Franz de Paula Max Joseph Sebastian Felix Freiherr von Edlmar, canon of Regensburg and parish priest in Fürth, lord of Obergangkofen, Waltendorf, Kleineigen and Schächten was the last Edlmar to be the lord of the court.

Despite the right of repurchase given in 1725, the purchases made by Barbier were reclaimed by the Erding court in 1781. On a corresponding note from Edlmar it was said that this decree was invalid because it must first be checked whether Elector Ferdinand Maria could have legally sold the subjects to barbers at all. Ultimately, the buyback did not take place because, in the opinion of the main fund, it was not possible to pay out the capital that had been collected, since the expenses would exceed the income anyway.

Walser of Syrenburg

After the death of Franz de Paula von Edlmar in 1785, the inheritance fell to a son of his sister Maria Klara, who was married to Max Anton von Walser zu Syrenburg, carer of Fürth . The son of the same name takes over the legacy and manages it faithful to the Testament regulations to 1800. Already in 1661 the Walser were with the title of Syrenburg of Emperor Leopold made an imperial nobility.

In 1791 the process of reclaiming the subjects acquired by Barbier begins again. The court in Erding questions Mr. von Walser's freedom of noblemen and that is why the subjects who were once sold to the barber reverted to the court. Since the Hofmark did not provide a statement, the six single-shift subjects were put under judicial duty in 1792 .

In 1801 his nephew Franz de Paula Walser von Syrenburg inherited the Hofmark. Due to the inclusion of Franz de Paula in the Bavarian aristocratic registers in 1810, the reclaimed subjects probably fell back to the Hofmark, at least only one of the subjects who came to the Hofmark in 1674 is known to no longer belong to the Hofmark after 1800.

After Franz de Paula's death in 1832, the estate fell to his widow Franziska, who in 1848 appears to have renounced her landlord rights in favor of the state.

lock

The building of the palace is mentioned as early as 1553, but without further details. The first description of the building itself is only in connection with the will of Barbier, here it says that the castle has to be repaired and Edlmar wants to bring the ruinous castle out of his peitl again . When Jacob Anton von Edlmar was finally awarded the Hofmark, he only knew about reports that his father rebuilt the castle and repaired the old building with almost 2000 guilders due to the risk of collapse.

The next inventory was then handed down in 1801 when Franz de Paula Walser took over the property. The furniture consisted of a spruce table, two chests of drawers, six leather-covered chairs, a table with a marble top, three old leather armchairs, and five wooden armchairs. There are also two double beds, a single bed, twenty-three pictures, a small filing cabinet and a large filing cabinet that was destroyed by the French. The palace itself is a poor, brick-built quarter and is leased.

It was described as uninhabited and destined for demolition as early as 1808, then demolished around 1820.

literature

• Erich Stahleder: Obergangkofen and Götzdorf, history of six villages and their churches in the Landshut district. 1954, OCLC 634291598

Individual evidence

1. ↑ State Archives Landshut Repertory 82 Fascicle 14 No. 178
2. ↑ Main State Archives Munich, Gangkofen and Massing court, fascicle 2 no.2406
3. ↑ Main State Archives Munich, Erding Court, Fascicle 4 No. 699
4. ↑ Main State Archives Munich, Gangkofen and Massing Court, Fascicle 2 No. 17
5. ↑ State Archives Landshut Repertory 17 Fascicle 40 No. 83
6. ↑ Main State Archives Munich, Gangkofen and Massing court, fascicle 2 no.2406
7. ↑ Main State Archives Munich, Gangkofen and Massing court, fascicle 2 No. 2424
8. ↑ State Archives Landshut Repertory 82 Fascicle 2 No. 123
9. ↑ State Archives Landshut Repertory 82 Fascicle 14 No. 178
10. ↑ Georg Ferchl: Bavarian authorities and officials 1550-1804. Volume 1, pages 569, 575 and Volume 2, pages 1077, 1337, 1338, 1363, Munich 1908, OCLC 162653533
11. ↑ State Archives Landshut Repertory 77 Fascicle 418 No. 22
12. ^ Main State Archive Munich, Personalenselect, Cart. 20th
13. ↑ State Archives Landshut Repertory 80 Fascicle 215 No. 245
14. ^ Munich District Archives, Judicial Literature, Fascicle 957 No. 35
15. ^ Munich District Archives, Judicial Literature, Fascicle 957 No. 35
16. ↑ Georg Ferchl: Bavarian authorities and officials 1550-1804. Volume 2, page 1052, Munich 1908, OCLC 237400438
17. ^ Munich District Archives, Judicial Literature, Fascicle 957 No. 35
18. ^ Munich District Archives, Judicial Literature, Fascicle 957 No. 35
19. ^ Munich District Archives, Judicial Literature, Fascicle 957 No. 35
20. ^ Munich District Archives, Judicial Literature, Fascicle 957 No. 35
21. ↑ State Archives Landshut Repertory 80 Fascicle 215 No. 245
22. ↑ State Archives Landshut Repertory 68 Fascicle 834 No. 1067
23. ^ Main State Archives Munich, Ministry of the Interior, 946

Coordinates: 48 ° 29 ′ 17 ″  N , 12 ° 11 ′ 13 ″  E