
    Claudius F. Le Grand, Appellant vs. Nicholas Darnall, Appellee.
    The act of the legislature of Maryland, passed in 1796, ,ch. 47, sec. 13, declares • “ that all persons capable in law to make a valid will and testament, may grant freedom to, and effect the manumission of .apy slave or slaves belonging to siich person or persons, by his, her, or their .last will and testament ^ and such manumissioh of any'slave or slaves may be made to take effect at the .death of the testator or testators, or at such other period as may be limited in such last-will and testament; provided always, that no manumission by last will and les-, tament shall be effectual to' give' freedom to any slave or slaves, if the same • shall be to the prejudice of creditors,- nor unless, the-said slave or slaves shall be under the age of forty-fivé years, and able to work and, gain', a sufficient maintenance and livelihood at the time the freedom given shall commence.” The time of freedom'of the appellee in this case, commenced when he was about eleven years old. ' Held, that' his mahumission by will was valid.
    The court .of appeals nf Maryland, has decided that a devise of property real or personal by a master tó his Slave, entitles the slave to his freedom by necessary implication. This Court' entertains the same opinion, [670]
    APPEAL from tHe circuit court of the United States, for the district of Maryland.
    The facts of the case appear on the argument of the counsel. for the appellee, and in the opinion of the Court.
    Mr Taney, for the .appellant,
    submitted the case without argument; stating, that it .had been brought up merely on account of its great importance to the appellee; which rendered it desirable that. the opinion • of the supreme court should be hád on- the matters in controversy.
    Mr Stewart, for the.appellee.
    The case presented by the bill, answers and depositions, is as follows.
    Bennett Darnall, of Ann Arundel, county, in the state of Maryland, by his will dated August 4th, 1810, devised to his son, Nicholas Darnall, the defendant in this case,‘certain, lands lying in the county and state aforesaid.
    The mother of the said Nicholas was the slave of the testator, .and- Nicholas was born a slave to his father. .
    
      Bennett Darnall, in his will, refers to two deeds of manumission executed by him, one in 1805 and the other in 1810, in both of which it seems Nicholas was included with other slaves designed to be emancipated, by these deeds- By some omission, neither of these deeds are exhibited.
    The testator made two codicils to his will, the last of which is dated January 20th, 1814, and,was . proved before the register of wills, January 31st, 1814. B.ennett Dárriall must therefore have died in January 1814. Nicholas Dar-nall, the defendant, sold the land referred to in the proceedings, to Le Grand the complainant, and it'yappears by the agreements exhibited with the bill, that at the time the contract was first made, neither party supposed there ryas any question about the title. But afterwards, it seems, doubts were suggested to Dárñall, which he communicated to Le Grand, and the agreements above mentioned were thereupon made with full knowledge on both sides of the supposed ,defect in the title, and were framed with,.reference to it.
    Le Grand gave his notes for the purchase money, according to the agreement and a suit was.brought on one of them, and judgment recovered in the circuit court for the district of Maryland; whereupon he filed, his- bill in that court, praying an injunction on the ground that Darnall was unable to convey him a good title to the land.
    ■ The defect supposed to exist, and alleged in the bill, is this ; that Dárnalí was not more than ten years of age at the time of his father’s death, and at that tender age was unable to work and gain a sufficient maintenance dnd livelihood, and was incapable therefore of receiving manumission by the laws of Maryland.
    The answer of Nicholas Darnall insists that he was, at the ■time of the testator’s death, able to work and gain a sufficient-livelihood and maintenance.
    Four witnesses were examined.
    John Mercer ahd Robert Welch prove that Nicholas was about eleven years of age at the time of his father’s death, and describe him as a fine, healthy, intelligent boy, able by his work to maintain himself. Dr James Stewart and Samuel Moore sfatethat boys of eleven years , of age In Maryland are able to support themselves by their. own labour, arid specify the kind, of work in. tvhich. they may be usefully employed. ,
    Upon this answer and evidence, the Court dissolved the injunction and dismissed the bill.
    It is proper to say, that the. whole of these proceedings have been amicable;, that Le Grand is willing to pay if his title is a. safe one, and that Darnall does not wish Le Grand to pay unless he can make,a good title to him;
    rBy the act of 1796, chap. 67, sec, 13, slaves may be manumitted in Maryland, by last,will y provided they be under forty-five years, of age, and able to. work and gain á sufficient maintenance and livelihood; at the time the freedom given-shall commence, .
    in tho case of ffall vs. Mullih, 5 Harris & Johns. 190, the court of appeals have .decided that a devise of property real Or. personal, bya mastei to his slave, entitles the slave to his freedom; by necessary implication. .
    Under this decisión, the'iyill of Bennett Darnall gave freedom to Nicholas, provided he was in. a condition to receive it at the testator’s death. The omission therefore to produce,the; deeds of manumission is not-material. If they are regarded as not proved, or as not effective for the purpose intended, still the defendant may rely on his title under the will,
    In the case, of Hamilton!». Cragg, 6 Harris & Johns. 16, it was held that án. infant slavé (only , three years -of age at the. time of the. death Of-the. testator who attempted to manumit, him), unable to gain a sufficient maintenance and livelihood, could hot..be manumitted, It was^ this decision that created the doubt in regard to the title of Nicholas. Darnall; for until that- case was. decided, it had been generally supposed that this provision in the statute was intended to guard against the,manumission of slaves who, although under forty-five years of age,. Were suffering under incurable diseases or constitutional, infirmities which would most probably always disahle them from maintaining themselves by . their'own labour, and make them a charge upon the public. It had not been generally.supposed to apply to the case of children for whose maintenance provision could perhaps always-be made by binding them to serve as apprentices, and especially was considered inapplicable to those chiklren .for whose support abundant provision.was made by the testator who gave the freedom.
    But without attempting to disturb the authority, of that case, the proof in this cause brings it expressly .within the principle decided in Hamilton vs. Cragg; and . entitles the party to his freedom. The defect of title alleged in the bill is consequently without foundation, and- the détíree of the court below fully justified.
   Mr Justice Duvall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is brought up by appeal from a.decree of the circuit court for the district of Maryland, sitting as a court of equity; and is submitted on written argument. The principal facts are .the follovving. ■

. Bennett Darnall,. late of Anne-Arundel county, Maryland, on the 4th day of August 1810, duly made and executed his last will and testament, and thereby devised to his son, the appellee, several tracts of land in fee,, one of which was called Portland Manor,* containing by estimation five. hundred and ninety six acres. The mother of Nicholas Dar-nall was the slave of the testator, and Nicholas was born the slave of his father, ánd was between ten-and eleven years, old at the time of.-the death' of the testator. Bennett Darnall, in his will”, refers to and confirms ,two deeds of manumission executed-' by himone bearing date in . 1805, and the other in i 810. In both of those deedS) Nicholas Darnall and.a numher of . other slaves were included, and emancipated after his decease. The testator died in the month of January 1814.

‘Nicholás.Darnall, on his arrival to full, age, took possession of the property devised to him, andón the 26th of April 1826 he entered into a contract with Le Grand the appellant for ¿he‘sale of the tract called Portland Manor for the consideration of twenty-two dollars per'acre, amounting-to the sum of thirteen thousand one hundred and twelve dollars, payable by agreement, in six annual payments with interest. Le Grand passed his' notes pursuant" to the terms. of the agreement, and received' the bond of Darnall to convey to him the property in fee simple upon payment of the purchase money. Le Grand was thereupon put into possession of the land. At the time the contract was made, the parties believed the title to the land to be unquestionable. Soon af-terwards, however, doubts were suggested to Darnall, and he communicated them to Le Grand, and' they entered into a supplementary and conditional agreement, without varying in substance the original contract., Darnall was not more than ten or eleven years of age at the time of the death of his father; and, by a law of the state of Maryland, it is provided that no manumission by last will and testament shall be effectual to give -freedom to any slave, unless-the. said slave shall be under the age of forty-five years, and able to work and gain a sufficient maintenance and liyélihood at the time the freedom intended to be given shall take place.-

A decision had lately been made by the court of appeals • of Maryland, in the' case of Hamilton vs. Cragg, that an infant (wh'ose age did not exceed two years when his title-to freedom, commenced) was not able to work and gain a sufficient maintenance and livelihood, arid was therefore adjudged to be a slave.; This decision of th.e highest court-of Jaw. in the state gave rise to doubts concerning the capability of the appellee to make a good title to the land which he. had sold to the appellant. . J>a-rnall deposited the amount of the first payment, that is to say ‡3000, in the hands of Ben-: jamin Tucker of Philadelphia, to be held, with, the consent of the appellant subject to the result of an examinatioh into the title. In consequence of. the decision of the court of appeals of Maryland; the heir at law of Bennett Darnall, the' testator, made claim to the, land, and threatened to commence suit for the recovery' of it. Le Grand being alarmed about the title, refused to make any further payment; and an action was commenced against him, and judgment recovered for the second payment. To prevent an execution and to ascertain, under a[l the circumstances of the case, whether the appel-lee could make a good title to the land which he had sold to him, he filed his bill of complaint in equity,' in the; circuit court, stating the circumstances, and obtained an injunction against any further'proceedings at law. The appellee put in his.answer, admitting all the facts stated in the bill, except that of his inability to gain a maintenance and livelihood.by labour, when his right to freedom commenced.. The. case Was submitted to the court upon the. bill, answer, exhibits arid, proof which had been- taken ; and the court, upon due consideration, ordered, the injunction to be dissolved, and decreed the bill to be dismissed. . From this decree;.an appeal was taken to this Court, and- the cause is now to be finally decided.

There is-one. question only to be discussed. If the appel-lee, at the time Of the death of the testator, was entitled to his freedom under the will and déeds of manumission before mentioned, then his title to the land sold was unquestionable. His claim to freedom Under the instruments above referred to depends upon a just construction of the act of the legislature of Maryland, passed in.theyéar 1796,ch. 47, sect. 13.

The words of the act are these: “ that all persons capable in law to make a valid will and testament, may grant freedom to, and effect the manumission of any slave or sktve.s belonging to. such person or,persons, by his, her or their last will .and testament; and such manúmissipff of any slave or slaves may be made'to take effect at the death of the testator pr testators,. Or at such other period as may be limited in such last will and testament; provided always, that no mar nurhission by last will and testament, shall. be-, effectual to give freedom to any slave or, slaves,-if the.same shall be to prejudice of creditors'; nor unless .the said- slave or ¿laves shall be under the -age" of forty-five years, and able to work and g.ain a sufficient maintenance and livelihood át the time the freedom given shall commence.”. The time of the free: dom of the -appellee commenced" immediately after the death of the testator, when, according to the evidence he was about eleven years old. . Four respectable witnesses of. the neighbourhood were examined. They all agree in their testimony, that Nicholas was' weW grown, healthy and intejii ■ gent, and of good bodily ancf 'mental capacity: that he auu ..his brother Henry could readily, have found employment, ■either as house servant boysj or on a farm, or as apprentices; and that they were able to. work and gain a livelihood. The Itestator.devised to each of them real and personal estate to a considerable amount. They had'guardians appointed, were well .educated and Nicholas is now living in affluence. Experience' has proved that he was able to work', and gain a súfficient:ffiáintenanee and livelihood.. No doubt as to the fact has év.ér been entertained by any who. know him; Of course,. h_e was capable iri law to Sell arid- dispose of the whole or any part of his estate, and to execute the necessary instruments of writing to ■convey, a sufficient title, to the purchase'.

The court of appeals of Maryland, iri the cáse of Hale vs. . Mullin',/decided, that a devisé of property real, or personal by a master to his slave, entities .the slave to his freedom by . necessary implication. This Court entertains the same opinion.

' It is not-the -iriclinati'ón of this Court to express any opinion as to the correctness of the- decision of-the court of appeals of Máryíandj in the.case of Hamilton vs. Cragg. it is un- ■ necessary in reference do the case under consideration.,

-The decree of the circuit court is;affirmed; and by Consent, of parties without costs..

This cause came on to be heard on the ‘transcript of the record from the circuit, court of the United States for. the district of Maryland, and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof, iit is considered, ordered and decreed by this Court, that the decree of the said circuit, court in this Cause be and the sarne is hereby affirmed without costs.  