Michael Palmer wrote: >>Bruchweiler belonged to the Amt or Herrschaft of Dahn, which was ruled jointly by the Hochstift Speyer (3/4; as part of the Oberamt Lauterburg) and by the family of Schenk von Waldenburg (1/4). Source: Friedrich Gilardone, 'Herrschaften in der Pfalz vor Ausbruch der franz"osischen Revolution,'<< So what did this mean for the tax-paying farmers of such areas with more than one jurisdiction?? Did they pay 3/4 to the Bishop and a quarter to the Baron? Or did they have to pay them both the same? I have also read in one town's history that the ishop of Speyer, who owned the town, rented (pachten)part of the town to a noble family, which meant they got an income form their part, and had to pay some to the Bishop. They passed the right to rent it down the generations, until a daughter inherited it and married into another family, to whom the right was then passed. This family at some point sold half of their renting right to another family, so that there were three rulers in the town. I just wondered if the town was split geographically, or if it was more a matter of the taxes being split among the rulers. But who had the say in judicial matters, then? Anybody know about this? Carol