Nengu, Registers and the Jitō's Deputy, 1294
In 1294 the myōshu of Nakamura-no-shō, a manor in Bizen Province, appealed to the Rokuhara tandai. The manor's proprietor was a Kyoto noble house whose title deed dated from 1185; the office of jitō had been held by the same warrior family since 1221, when it was confirmed after the Jōkyū War. A cadastral survey of 1240, accepted by both parties, fixed the annual nengu at 300 koku. In 1292 the jitō's deputy, without the proprietor's consent, resurveyed the fields, added 70 koku for newly reclaimed land, and collected 420 koku, of which only 260 reached Kyoto. The myōshu's household of 41 people says it can deliver at most 320 koku; it holds the 1240 register and a confirmation letter from the bakufu. The jitō argues that land belongs to whoever reclaimed it and that he must fund mounted retainers for a coming campaign.
1. Which piece of evidence should weigh most heavily, and on what legal principle?
Read the worked answer
The 1240 register is decisive, supported by the bakufu confirmation letter.
Reasoning: Kamakura courts generally began from the position that a proprietor's documented right to nengu was to be protected, and that a jitō's office carried a defined share of the estate's income, not a general power to reassess it. The 1240 survey is the last figure both parties accepted; a deputy's unilateral resurvey has no standing unless the proprietor consented or the bakufu authorised it.
The jitō's strongest point is the reclaimed land, which was often assessed separately - but he must show when the 70 koku of fields were opened, by whom, and with whose capital. He cannot simply deduct the cost of retainers from the noble's share; that would convert a private obligation into a public charge on the estate. The gap between 420 collected and 260 delivered is prima facie evidence of withholding.
2. Predict the likely outcome and explain what the case reveals about the late Kamakura balance of power.
Read the worked answer
Likely outcome: an order to pay the arrears on the 1240 basis, with the new fields assessed separately - the court protects the documented nengu while avoiding a ruling that would ruin a warrior house.
What it reveals: in the 1290s the bakufu was still willing to rule against its own vassals in favour of Kyoto proprietors, because the whole legal order rested on the same shiki logic for both sides. Undermining the proprietor's documented share would undermine the jitō's documented share in the next case.
Yet the case also shows that order eroding: a jitō could withhold 160 koku for two years before a hearing, and the remedy depended on his compliance. That does not prove the nobility was strong; it shows that what enforced the nengu was the bakufu's authority rather than the noble's own power.
3. How would the case change if the 1240 register had been lost?
Read the worked answer
The court would fall back on the 1185 title deed and the myōshu's confirmation letter. The deed establishes the right in principle but not the amount; the letter confirms status, not figures.
The court would then rely on the last undisputed payment, the myōshu household's testimony, and the jitō's own collection records - precisely the evidence the jitō controls. The outcome shifts from 'pay 300 koku and the arrears' to a compromise assessment, or to a remand for a joint survey in which the deputy sets the terms of measurement.
The wider point is the examinable one: in medieval disputes a document that fixes a number outweighs a title that fixes only a right, and the party holding the register shapes the outcome before any argument is heard.