
    Negro George vs. Dennis.
    On the drath of § J$, si resnleñt of tíña strite^ « ijiave hc'-'angitiif to his estate, v. ns, by a bill of Va’lti exe* Q«to«l by his uduunn-tratok1 in l^)4,*sold to G D, «ibt)' ti resident of this state, bin vho Unmcti SUriy *yf ?<w<mN removed ^0 Fii’gittia, ííjkI iW)k the t. aye with him. On n pviitinii find b) the ¿UmjaKíiimt G D fo>- his fr<*t dom— pdd* that lie iy;is ii.t ctitiiled “to ¡jre^doity y
    Appeal from Somerset county court. This was a petition for freedom. The facts of the case, as admitted at .the trial, wefQ these — The petitioner, (the appellant,) was t^ie property of Samuel Engersole, who resided in Somerset county, and on his death, came to the possession of Richard .Engersole, his administrator, who resided in the. same county. R. Engersole, the administrator, by bill of sale dated the lGt\i of October 1792, sold the petitioner to the defendant, then a resident also of the said county, and who immediately afterwards removed to the state of Virginia, and took the petitioner With him. The court,(Polk, £h. J. and Bone, A. J. j were of opinion, and so instructed the jury, that these facts were not sufficient to entitle the petitioner to his freedom. The petitioner excepted; and the verdict qnd judgment being against him, fie appealed to this, court.
    The canse was argued before Buciianan^ Nic non soil, ©\ntt, and Earle, J, l«y
    
      if, B. Martin, for the Appellant^
    and by
    
      ■J, J^ctyly, for the Appellee*'
   judgment 4,epjbmep.  