
    JACK et al. (slaves) vs. DORAN’S EXECUTORS.
    [STATUTORY SUIT FOlt FREEDOM.]
    1. Validity of bequest of freedom to slave. —In this State, a direct bequest of freedom to slaves is void, unless their emancipation is author.zed by some special legislativo provision; and where the testator is authorized, by a special statute, to emancipate his slaves at his discretion, but is required, as a condition precedent, previously to convoy a certain quantity of land to the judge of the county court, in trust, for their use, as a security that they shall not become a public charge, a devise of the land to the slavos themselves, in a will which is not sufficiently attested to pass real estate, is not a substantial compliance with the statute, and the bequest aud devise are both void.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson.
    Tlie record does not show the name of. the presiding, jiudge.
    This action was instituted by the appellants, who were the-slaves of James Doran,, deceased, in his life-time, and' who sued by their ¡next friend, against the executors aud heirs-at-law of said! Doran. The plaintiffs claimed their freedom under--two special acts of the legislature of Alabama, which were made exhibits to their petition, aud under the will of said Doran, which was admitted to probate, in November, 1840, as a will of personal property only, being attested b.y but-two witnesses.
    The first act of the legislature, entitled “An- act to authorize James Doran to .emancipate certain .slaves therein named,” approved January 20, 1832, was in these words : “Be it -enacted,” &c., “that James Doran, of Jackson county, be,, and he is hereby, authorized to (to. take effect at his discretion) emancipate and set-free slavesmfi'tbe following names — viz., Sally, Annie, Jack, Catsy, Davy, Erne-line, Eliza, Jane, Nancy, Am anda,¡-Jerry, and Polly ; provided, he shall previously convey-.to '• the judge of the county court of said county, and :his successors, six hundred aud forty acres of land, on which he now resides, or lands equal in value thereto, in-trust-forever, for the use of said slaves, as security that they shall not become chargeable on any city, county, or town in this State.” The other act-, which was approved January 5, 1833, and entitled “An act supplemental to” to the former, authorized said Doran to emancipate two other slaves, Jim and Esther by name, upon the condition mentioned in the previous, act.
    
      The clause of said Doran’s will, under which the plaintiffs asserted their claim to freedom, was as follows: “At the death of my wife, Linny Doran, I give and bequeath unto my negro slaves which I now. have at home with me,” (specifying by name all the slarjes mentioned in the two acts of the legislature, and their children,) “and all future increase of their families, their .freedom ; provided, they be obedient servants to my wife during the whole of her natural life-time,” &c. “And, as the ,kw obliges the owners of slaves to give security before they can set-them free, so that they may not become a public charge, IJeave to them, for that purpose, the whole of my tract of land on which I now live, to be divided in tire following manner,” &c.
    The suit was instituted in September, 1858. The petition alleged, that .the widow,.of.said Doran died in 18-5'J ; that the plaintiffs were afterwards carried into Tennessee, by some of the defendants, against whom the other defendants had there instituted legal proceedings for, their recovery ; and that the plaintiffs were >still in Tennessee, when their petition was filed. The circuit court sustained a demurrer to the petition,, and -its... judgment is now-, assigned as error.
    PL Cox, for appellants.
    P. TuRNEV, contra.
    
   R. W. WALKER, J.

James Doran, by. his will, which was executed in this State, made a direct bequest of freedom to certaiu slaves. According to the repeated decisions of this couit, it is clear that, unless there was some legislative provision authorizing the emancipation, the bequest was void.— Trotter v. Blocker, 6 Por. 269 ; Atwood v. Beck, 21 Ala. 612; Alston v. Coleman, 7 Ala. 795, Roberson v. Roberson, 21 Ala. 273. It is not pretended that there was any legislative authority for the emancipation, except such as was furnished by the special acts of 1832 and 1S-33, which are set out in the record. These acts authorized Doran to emancipate these slaves, the emancipation to take effect at Ins discretion; but they provided, as a condition precedent to the emancipation, that be should previously convey to the judge of the county court'of. Jhckson county six hundred and forty acres of land, on which?lie then resided, or lands equal in value thereto, in trust forever, for the use of said slaves; as security that they should not become chargeable on any city, county, or town in this State. No conveyance of any kind was ever made, or attempted to be made by Doran, to the judge of the county court, in trust for the use of the slaves. The attempt to-devise the six hundred and forty acres of land referred to,, directly to the slaves, was, perhaps, made with the view of complying with this requirement of the legislature.- But that attempt was futile, if for no other reason; because the will, having been attested by only two witnesses, was not so executed as to pass real estate ; and, consequently, was admitted to probate, only so far as it related'to personalty. This devise of the land to the slaves being void, there can be no pretense that Doran ever performed, either in form or in substance;, the condition which the legislature prescribed as a pre-requisite to the emancipation. The bequest of freedom must, therefore, be treated just as if these special acts of the legislature had never existed. Thus considered, it is, according to the well-settled law of this State; clearly invalid.

Judgment affirmed.  