
    Crapster vs. Griffith.
    Appeal from a decree of the court of chancery. The complainant (now appellant-,) and his wife, had heretofore filed a bill to set aside a settlement made between the defendant and the complainant’s wife, to whom the defendant had been guardian, and to- have an account of the monies in his (the defendant’s) hands,- and to compel him to deliver certain slaves. After a statement of accounts, the chancellor set aside the settlement, and decreed the payment of a specific sum of money, and the delivery of the slaves. This decree, on appeal by the defendant, was affirmed in this court. ■ The money was paid, and the enumerated negroes delivered in pursuance of the decree and affirmance, but the account, as audited, necessarily stopped at a period considerably before the final decree and affirmance. In the mean time the defendant had had the services of negroes from the date of the audit to the time of delivery, compensation for which was not, and could not, be included in the decree. Between the period of executing the commission in the original case, ascertaining and identifying the negroes, and the final decree, and also between the date of the decree, and the delivery in pursuance thereof, fhe female slaves had children. Those born after the decree were delivered over under the decree? but those born between the execution of the commission and decree, were fetained by the defendant as his property-. The answer of fhe defendant admitted these facts, but claimed an allowance for certain monies which he'ought to have been allowed oil the original decree, and denied the right of the complainant to the negroes.
    
      Where a complainant hds esliiBlished his right certain negro slaves, he can by jnnew bill recovet* xhe value of the issue bom after the fir*t bill was filed» and not included in. the former deci ee
    lie is also entiC.od to the value of the services of such slaves from the lime of theau* ditor’s slalemenr, «town to the period of their actual delivery, under the decree, by ■which his right to them is ascertain* ed*
    
      Kilty, Chancellor, dismissed the bill — 1. On the ground that the decree'Of the court of chancery, as affirmed, was Conclusive! and could not be opened by either party. 2» That the negroes, born after the close of the commission, being in esse beforé the decree, ought to have been brought in by a supplemental bill, and could not be sued for by a new bill.- 3. That the Valué of the labour of the negroes, from the time of the auditor’s statement, ought not to be allowed in this suit, it being a subject proper either for the, court of appeals, in the nature of an increase of damages, or interest, or for a suit on the appeal bond.
    From this decree the complainant appealed to this court, where the cause Was argued before Buchanan, Earle, Martin, and Dorsey, J.
    
      T. B. Dorsey, (Attorney Genera!,) and Winder, for the Appellant,
    referred to Norwood vs. Norwood, and Hepburn vs. Sewell, in this court. The act of 1713, ch. 4, and Butcher vs. Norwood, 1 Harr. & Johns. 485.
    
      Magruder 8f B. Forrest, for the Appellee,
    cited 2 Com. Dig. tit. Chancery, (Y 7,) 323. Shepherd vs. Titley, 2 Atk. 348. Anon. 3 Atk. 809. 2 Madd. Chan. 408, 409. Cooper’s Plead. 88, 89. Hollingsworth et ux. vs. M‘Donald et al. in this court at December term 1807. Gelston vs. Codwise, 1 Johns. Chan. Rep. 189.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dorsey,.. J.

The chancellor’s decree in this cause Is .erroneous, and must be reversed, as we are of opinion that the complainant is entitled to one moiety of the negroes born of Lucy and Mitty, after the execution of the comínission, and before the passing of the decree in the suit brought by the complainant, and his wife, against the present defendant, in the court of chancery, and which is referred to, and made part of, the bill filed in this cause. And we are further of opifiiph, that the complainant is entitled to recover the value of the labour of the negroes assigned tb him; by the said decree, from the date of the auditor’s statements, to wit, the 19th December 1813, to the period when the said last mentioned negroés were tielivered to the complainant!

DECREE reversed;  