There are history of law system, economic history and history of city for the field of the study which made medieval “Doso” the material. Understanding about “Tsuchikura” in the present study is based on a study of Takeshi Toyoda and Takahiro Okuno. We assume that “Doso” is “usurer capitalist”, “usurer's pronoun”, “financial institution” and “representative of quality business” according to a study of Toyota and Okuno who become an established theory.
　On the other hand, a priest in Kyoto, a priest in an exist place, a seigneur, a merchant, a warrior, a court noble and their vassal give the same thing as a chosen financial act to “Doso”. Though a previous study has classified “Doso” as a moneylender and a pawnbroker.
　The purpose on writing is based on such study situation, and considers the reason that “Doso” started to be understood as a moneylender. I look for origin of interpretation about “Doso” Toyota and Okuno made the premise in particular.
　The result is as follows. The theory about “Doso” is what Arai Hakuseki of the Edo period argued. The theory he had taught turned out to be misreading of historical materials. That theory was handed down to Yokoi at the wintertime, a scholar of the Meiji era. And the theory of Yokoi at the time of winter was published in the encyclopedia “古事類苑”. And it was passed on to the current common belief.

　In the criminal codes of traditional Chinese dynasties, we can find an article that the government is to punish officials and soldiers who couldn't arrest criminals within a certain time limit. This kind of article existed in T'ang Code （唐律）, Ming Code （明律）, and also in Ch'ing Code （清律）. Since the Jia Qing （嘉慶） period of Ch'ing dynasty, it was also included in the Mongolian Code Lifanyuan Zeli （理藩院則例） published in three languages (Chinese, Mongolian and Manchu) by the Manchu Ch'ing government, which was applied only for ordinary Mongolians. So we can reach the first conclusion that this article of time limit for arresting Mongolian criminals was introduced into Mongolian law from the traditional Chinese law. In this paper I will examine a real case to which this article was applied by using official documents kept in the National Central Archives of Mongolia.
　On the 14^th of October 1877 (3rd year of Guang Xu 光緒), Odser, a šabi (subject) of Erdeni Bandida Qutuγtu (a living Buddha) in Sayin Noyan Ayimaγ region killed Daγba, a yeke šabi (great subject) of jebjundamba Qutuγtu (the greatest living Buddha in northern Mongolia) and escaped afterward from the prison in yeke küriy-e (present Ulan-bator) to somewhere. And the Manchu minister in yeke küriy-e ordered the manager Daγdangvačir of the lama-banner of Erdeni Bandida Qutuγtu to trace and arrest him in the fixed time limits. But the official Lubsangdorji and three soldiers of the banner couldn't arrest him within the first time limit of 3 months, nor second time limit of 6 months, nor third time limit of 9 months. So the Manchu minister punished these four persons applying the time limit clause in the Lifanyuan Zeli of 1842. In that legal process, as the translated sentence sent to the banner office by way of the league chief retained features of spoken Mongolian, we can conclude that what the Manchu minister referred to and quoted was based on the Manchu version of Lifanyuan Zeli. This is the second conclusion.
　The seemingly unique feature of the case in point is in the quoting style of the sentence. While the minister seems to quote directly from the article, he actually chose arbitrarily parts of the article to create a cohesively knit sentence of his, as if he had newly compiled his own article. This style of quotation of the Code is the third conclusion.
　Eventually, the official Lubsangdorji and three soldiers couldn't arrest Odser within the fourth time limit of one year, either, and were accordingly punished by the minister as stipulated in the same article of Lifanyuan Zeli of 1842. The manager Daγdangvačir was also punished likewise. In this case of fugitive criminal Odser, the minister applied the article of time limit for arresting Mongolian criminals in the Lifanyuan Zeli of 1842 to not only the official and the soldiers (šabi) in charge, but also the manager of the lama-banner. This is the fourth conclusion of this paper.

　Der vorliegende Aufsatz behandelt die Streitigkeiten zwischen dem Deutschen Orden und der Königsstadt Mühlhausen in Thüringen im 14. Jahrhundert. Er versucht, die Methoden für Konfliktbeilegung und die Tätigkeit der königlichen Gerichtsbarkeit festzustellen und besonders im Zusammenhang mit der kirchlichen Gerichtsbarkeit auf einen Aspekt der Bedingungen, unter denen die Königsgerichtsbarkeit wirkte, Aufmerksamkeit zu richten. Während der Deutsche Orden vor allem im 13. Jahrhundert vielerorts in Deutschland Güter und Rechte erworben und auch in Mühlhausen seine Position ausgebaut hatte, kollidierte er oft mit der Bürgergemeinde von Mühlhausen, die auf dem Weg war, sich von der königlichen Stadtherrschaft zu emanzipieren. Der Konflikt um die Schulen in Mühlhausen unter Kaiser Ludwig IV. war durch den kaiserlichen Eingriff zugunsten des Ritterordens beendet. Der Orden und die Stadt stoßen dann wieder in der Zeit Karls IV. um die Bestattung der Toten in der Stadt und andere Probleme zusammen. Nachdem der von dem Kaiser eingesetzte Bischof als delegierter Richter ein Urteil zugunsten des Deutschen Ordens gefällt hatte, widersetzte sich doch diesmal die Stadt. Sie holte ein Gutachten von gelehrten Juristen und erhob darauf vor der kirchlichen Gerichtsbarkeit unter dem Erzbischof von Mainz ihre Klage gegen den Orden. Nachdem man sich um eine Versöhnung vor Ort bemüht und Prozesse vor mehreren kirchlichen Gerichten einschließlich der päpstlichen Kurie in Avignon durchgeführt hatte, traf schließlich das kaiserliche Schiedsgericht eine für die Stadt günstige Entscheidung. Wie diese Ereignisse zeigen, gab es unter Karl IV. anders als in der Zeit Ludwigs IV. für streitenden Parteien breitere Spielräume, kirchliche Gerichte zu benutzen. Diese Umstände sollen wir nicht unterschätzen, wenn wir die Wirkung der königlichen Gerichtsbarkeit im deutschen Spätmittelalter bewerten wollen.

　The outline for study of Muromachi shogunate after WW2 was made by Sato Shinichi, and he defined the system of early Muromachi shogunate as diarchy governed by Ashikaga Takauji (first Shogun of this shogunate) and his brother Tadayoshi. Mr. Sato defined Takauji 's power as it based on lord and vassal structure, which is composed of distribution of estates as rewards (called Onsho-Ateokonai) and command authority of army. And he also defined Tadayoshi 's power as it based on sovereignty, which is composed of security of lights in feudal estates (called Shoryo-Ando) and estate lawsuits (called Shomusata).
　After Sato 's work, the study of this shogunate focused on Tadayoshi 's Shomusata and clarified the process of reinforcement of Shogun's direct power in the reign of Ashikaga Yoshiakira (second Shogun of the shogunate).
　But I consider that the study of Shomusata stagnates in 21^st century.
　And Sato 's thesis of dualism in this shogunate itself is denied in recent years, because it is clarified that almost all systems of this shogunate have both element of power based on lord and vassal structure and element of power based on sovereignty.
　For defeat of this stagnation, I suggest that we have to focus on power based on lord and vassal structure, especially Onsho-Ateokonai, which is defined as a power subject to power based on sovereignty, and it is also defined as a power defeated by power based on sovereignty. In this point of view, I've studied about Shituji-Shigyoujyou (charters issued by shogun's butler). In this paper, I will introduce about the outline of my study about Shituji-Shigyoujyou, and will consider about dualism in early Muromachi shogunate and about reinforcement of shogun's direct power in the reign of Ashikaga Yoshiakira.
　Muromachi shogunate in early period was governed by Ashikaga Tadayoshi in fact, and he was called Sanjyo-Dono. Ashikaga Takauji had only the power of Onsho-Ateokonai, but this power had a function of creation, which changes and newly creates political orders. On the other hand, Tadayoshi 's power had a function of maintenance, which keeps existing political orders. In this view, those two functions were separated definitely in early Muromachi shogunate, because of peculiar situation in Nanbokucho period.
　And I will suggest that the reinforcement of shogun's direct power in the reign of Ashikaga Yoshiakira is the phenomenon that almost all policies were carried out like an enforcement of Onsho-Ateokonai. He faced to political crisis which continued after the civil war (called Kannnouno-Jyouran), and he inherited Tadayoshi 's power of maintenance. So he promoted Onsho-Ateokonai strongly and carried out other policies like an enforcement of Onsho-Ateokonai as far as possible, for reinforcement of his power. I consider that his policy of protection of temple's estates in his courtroom (called Gozen-sata) is a part of this policy.
　In the last of this paper, I will consider about the origin of Sato 's thesis of dualism. Max Weber 's thesis of trialism may influence his thesis without a doubt. And the controversy between Nakata Kaoru and Maki Kenji may influence his view about state, too.