
    Sam, a man of color, vs. Wright Fore.
    The remedy given by the statute, (Hutch. Code, 523,) is the only one by which a man of color in this state, who is held in bondage, and claims his freedom, can assert his right thereto ; a petition therefore, by such a person to the circuit court, in which he asserts his freedom by the will of his former owner in Kentucky, on his attaining the age of thirty-one years, and that he had attained that age, should be entertained according to that statute.
    On the trial of such petition, the law of Kentucky establishing the petitioner’s right to freedom, on emancipation by his master, must be produced in authentic shape.
    In error from the circuit court of Rankin countyHon. Stanhope Posey, presiding judge.
    Sam, a colored man, filed his petition, charging that he is unlawfully held in servitude by Wright Fore, and praying that he may be set at liberty. The petition was sworn to in due form, and presented to Chief Justice Sharkey, one of the judges of the high court of errors and appeals, who, by his fiat ordered a writ of habeas corpus to issue against Wright Fore, and made the same returnable to the circuit court of Rankin county. The writ issued and was returned accordingly.
    The petition filed in the cause sets forth the fact, that on the 7th day of May, 1821, tbe said petitioner was a slave for life, and the sole and legal property of one Mary Kennedy, a citizen of Campbell county, Kentucky. That on the said 7th day of May, 1821, the said Mary Kennedy executed and delived in due form her last will and testament, by the provisions of which, petitioner was emancipated and to be set at liberty, when he should arrive at the age of thirty-one, which would be on the 7th day of December, 1844, until which time petitioner was to remain in the possession of one Edward L. Beal. That petitioner was sold to one John Lawrence some time subsequently, and by the said John Lawrence brought to the state of Mississippi, and whilst in the possession of the said Lawrence, petitioner was seized and sold under an execution as the property of the said Lawrence, and purchased and since held in possession and servitude by Wright Fore, with full notice of the .existence of the said will, or the provision therein manumitting the petitioner. A copy of this will, duly authenticated, is filed with the petition, and contains the provision for the emancipation of the petitioner, as stated, with the further provision, that the said .slave, Sam, should not be removed from or out of the state of Kentucky during the period of his servitude, on any pretence whatever.
    
      To this petition Fore demurred, and assigned as causes of demurrer,
    1. That no such state of facts is exhibited in said petition, as if true, constitutes the petitioner a free man.
    2. The act of emancipation set forth in the petition is not valid by the law of the land.
    3. That the court is not authorized, under any state of the case, to pronounce the decree or judgment prayed for.
    At the May term, 1846, the demurrer was sustained, and the petition dismissed.
    Sam sued out this writ of error.
    
      L. Lea and D. W. Adams, for plaintiff in error,
    Cited Hutch. Dig. 999-1002; 2 Littell, Laws of Ken. 387; Ninney v. Cartwright, 3 A. K. Marsh. Ken. Rep. 1289; Rankin v. Lydia, 2 lb. 467; Hutch. Dig. 1001, sec. 9; Crowder v. Hill et al. Jan. Term, 1849, High Court of Errors and Appeals (unreported;) Story, Confl. of Laws, art. 263, p. 219, and authorities there cited; State v. Farlee, Coxe, Rep. 41; State v. Reaver, lb: SO.
   Mr. Justice Clayton

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a petition filed by the plaintiff in error, in the circuit court of Rankin, to establish his right to freedom. The proceeding was according to the statute to be found in Hutch. Code, 523.

The petitioner alleges that he was liberated in Kentucky, by the will of his former owner, and that he was to be free when he attained the age of thirty-one years. That he has attained that age, and that he is entitled to his freedom by the provisions of said will, and the laws of the country.” To this petition a de-niurrer was filed, which was sustained by the court below, and the case thence comes to this court.

It has been heretofore stated, that the remedy given by this statute is the only one which a slave can pursue, who is held in bondage, and claims his freedom. Thornton v. Demoss, 5 S. & M. 618. If this be true, it is not easy to see upon what principle the decision in this case, made by the court below, can be sustained.

The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for farther proceedings. Upon the trial, it will be necessary for the petitioner to produce the law of Kentucky, which establishes his right to freedom, in a shape which will entitle it to be considered by the court.

Judgment reversed.  