
    *Tabb’s Adm’r v. Archer’s Adm’r & als.
    April Term, 1851,
    Richmond.
    (Absent Cabeh,, P.)
    Equity Practice—Suits to Divide Estate oí Decedent— Case at Bar.—J T died intestate, leaving- a large number of slaves: and leaving a widow F T, and eight children. Of the children a daughter F was married to A, and there was a marriage settlement securing her property to her and her children. Another daughter H, died an infant and unmarried. Subsequently it was agreed between F T and the children, that she should surrender to them at once her dower slaves upon terms agreed oh by them; and a suit was brought in equity to have the slaves divided among the parties. The Court appointed commissioners with directions, first to allot to the widow F T one sixty-fourth of the slaves as her own as distributee of her daughter H; .and to divide the remainder among the children. The division was made; and the share of the; widow was valued at $1580; the share of each child at $14039. The share of F was. valued at $211 more than the average,; and her husband was directed to pay this to the other children. In consideration of the surrender of these slaves to F and her husband, the husband agreed to convey and did convey to F T, a portion of these slaves valued at $2200; and he received the remainder, and sold some and retained others until the death of F T, ten years after the division. The children of F then claimed the slaves conveyed by her husband to F T, and their increase. Heed:
    i.
    i. Same—Same—Same.—The husband of F having been entitled absolutely on account of his wife to her share of her sister T’s interest in the slaves amounting to $1580, and he being required to pay $211 for o.welty of partition,— $1791; and he hav-, ing by agreement with F T, conveyed the slaves to her, in consideration of her surrender of the remainder, the slaves so conveyed by him, to the extent of his interest in the dower slaves, must be taken to have been his own, and to have passed by his conveyance to F T; and her title was not affected by the fact that the husband had after-wards, in disregard of the terms of the marriage articles sold some of the slaves surrendered to him.
    *2. Same—Same—Same.—The arrangement by which the beneficiaries in the marriage agreement acquired immediate possession of the slaves, was so clearly beneficial, that the difference between the interest of the husband of F in the dower slaves, being $1791, and the value of the slaves conveyed by him to F T, was a proper and reasonable charge upon the trust estate.
    In February 1829, John Y. Archer filed his bill in the late Superior court of chancery for the Richmond district, in which he stated that he and his four brothers and sisters, three of whom were infants, were the children of John R. Archer and Frances Cook his wife, formerly Frances Cook Tabb, who had before their marriage, entered into a marriage contract, by which the property of the wife had been secured to her children. That some time during the previous year Frances Tabb, the grandmother of the plaintiff, had died possessed of certain slaves on account of her dower interest in the estate of her husband John Tabb; and that William J. Barksdale as her administrator, was about to sell them as her property. And making Barksdale as the administrator of Frances Tabb, a defendant, he asked for an injunction to the sale; and that the Court would decree to the plaintiff and those equally interested their portion of said slaves; and for general relief.
    The injunction was refused by the Chancellor, but was granted by the Court of appeals.
    In July 1829, Barksdale answered the bill. He admitted the marriage settlement between John R. Archer and his wife; the death of Mrs. Frances Tabb in April 1828, and his qualification as administrator upon her estate. He said that a large number of slaves had been allotted to Mrs. Tabb as her dower in the slaves of her husband John Tabb deceased; but at the earnest solicitation of John R. Archer the father of the plaintiff, as respondent understood, Frances Tabb on the 25th of December 1818, agreed to take for her dower right in *that portion of the slaves which would belong to Mrs. Archer at the death of Frances Tabb, the sum of 2000 dollars to be paid in slaves: and in consideration of her relinquishing the same to the said John R. Archer he executed to Frances Tabb a bill of sale for the following slaves, viz: Philip, Maria, Nelly, Buey and William; as would appear by his bill of sale exhibited with the defendant’s answer; and that the woman Maria had since had four children. He admitted the five first named slaves were a part of the slaves held by Frances Tabb as her dower slaves, assigned to her out of the estate of her husband John Tabb; but he insisted that an absolute estate in these slaves was not worth more than the life estate in the slaves surrendered by Frances Tabb to John R. Archer.
    The defendant further insisted on an absolute right to these slaves under the bill of sale of John R. Archer; but if Archer had no right by reason of the marriage contract between himself and his wife, to sell them absolutely, then he insisted the sale was good for his life. But if John R. Archer had no right to make the purchase and sale, then that he should be a party in this suit, and should be decreed to pay this defendant as administrator of Mrs. Frances Tabb, a reasonable hire for all the dower slaves of Frances Tabb from the time he received them until her death.
    The defendant further insisted that the slave Sye or Syphax was not one of the dower slaves of Mrs. Frances Tabb; but had been purchased by her at a sale of negroes belonging to the estate of her son John Y. Tabb deceased, made 15th February 1819, at the price of 800 dollars.
    At the June term 1830, the Court directed John R. Archer to be made a defendant in the case; and by leave of the Court his name was inserted in the bill as a defendant; and in January 1832, he and his wife filed an answer. They objected to the jurisdiction of the *Court, and insisted that if their codefendant Barksdale had any claim against them, or either of them, he should have asserted it by original or cross bill, or by an action at law. But if they were wrong in their objection, then for answer to the bill they say that the several matters of fact contained therein the3v believe are correctly stated; and they submit all questions of law arising thereupon to the consideration of the Court.
    They say that as to John R. Archer’s liability to Barksdale as administrator of Frances Tabb, raised in his answer, they admit the agreement therein mentioned between Mrs. Tabb and Archer; and that he, under a belief that he might lawfully do so, executed the bill of sale exhibited with the answer. That the slaves therein contained were a part of the slaves assigned to Mrs. Tabb for her dower in the slaves of John Tabb deceased. That the price agreed to be paid to Mrs. Tabb for the relinquishment of her life estate was 2000 dollars; but in fact, the slaves conveyed to her were valued at 2200 dollars.
    They say that the slave Sye or Syphax was one of the dower slaves allotted to them; and to whom independent of the agreement with Mrs. Tabb, they would have been entitled at her death. That he was sold by John R. Archer at the time and place of the sale made by the trustees of John Y. Tabb; but he was sold solely for the benefit of the defendant Archer, and was purchased for Mrs. Tabb, to whom he was sent; but that no part of the purchase money amounting to 800 dollars, was ever paid.
    The defendant Archer further stated, that among the slaves allotted to himself and wife, was one called Miller Bee, valued at 900 dollars. That this slave was sold on account of the defendant Archer, at a sale made on the 18th and 19th December 1818, of a number of the dower slaves, for 700 dollars, and the proceeds paid to William B. Giles, at the instance and for the benefit *of Mrs. Frances Tabb; who also received from the agent who conducted the said sale the further sum of 695 dollars, part of the proceeds of other slaves allotted to the defendants Archer and wife, and sold for the defendant Archer at the sale aforesaid. That there were two other dower slaves held by Mrs. Tabb which under the agreement with her, should have been delivered up to the distributees of her husband, viz: George, called shoemaker George, and Delphia ; the latter was sold at the sale mentioned above for dollars, and the proceeds paid over to Mrs. Tabb. George was subsequently disposed of by her. He was worth probably about 900 dollars: And no account had ever been rendered to said distributees of the value of either. They therefore insisted that they had never received the full consideration for which the bill of sale was executed; and that a large portion of the sum of 2000 dollars which the defendant Barksdale supposed he was entitled to claim of the defendant Archer, had been retained or received by Mrs. Tabb in her lifetime.
    And they insisted further, that Mrs. Tabb died largely indebted to the estate of her daughter Harriet Tabb, of whom she had been the guardian; and that one seventh part of the sum thus due belonged to the defendants Archer and wife as distributees of said Harriet.
    It appears that John Tabb died intestate about the year 1797, leaving a very large number of slaves to be divided among his widow Trances Tabb and his eight children, one of whom was Trances Cook and another was Harriet Tabb. In 1801 Trances Cook Tabb was married to Dr. John R. Archer; and previous to the marriage they executed a marriage agreement by which Dr. Archer agreed that all the estate, real and personal, of the said Trances Cook, should be secured and settled upon her and her heirs, with a specific exception; and the annual profits only should be applied to the support and maintenance of themselves and their issue. This ^marriage agreement was sustained and enforced, as will be seen by the case of Tabb v. Archer, reported in 3 Hen. & Munf. 433.
    Mrs. Trances Tabb qualified as the guardian of Harriet Tabb, and her guardianship continued until 1806, when Harriet Tabb died an infant and unmarried; and Dr. Bathurst Randolph became the administrator of her estate. In 1818 Mrs. Trances Tabb, Dr. Archer and his wife and three others of Mrs. Tabb’s daughters and their husbands filed their bill in the County court of Amelia, in which they stated the fact that Mrs. Tabb had a number of slaves in her possession as dower slaves of her husband’s estate, to which the children of John Tabb would be entitled at her death. That it would be for the interest of all the parties that these slaves should be distributed among those entitled in remainder. That arrangements had been made between the complainants for compounding their respective interests in said slaves, which they conceived to be mutually beneficial. And having made the administrator of a deceased child, and the other living daughter defendants, they asked for a distribution of the slaves among the parties entitled, upon their making to Trances Tabb such satisfaction for her dower interest therein as she should be willing to accept in full discharge of the same.
    The defendants answered, concurring in the prayer of the bill; and the *Court made a ' decree appointing commissioners who were directed to receive the slaves from Mrs. Tabb, and of these slaves, in the first place to allot one sixty-fourth part to Trances Tabb, to be held by her in absolute property, as her distributable share of her daughter Harriet’s proportion of said slaves; and that they should then proceed to divide the residue of said slaves into seven equal portions or allotments, having reference to value, and should deliver one portion to each of the husbands of the female plaintiffs, *and to the daughter and the representatives of the deceased sons, to be held by the said parties according to their respective titles, upon the exhibition by each of the said parties respectively, of a release or acquittance in writing to the said party by the said Trances Tabb, and attested by two witnesses at the least, discharging the- said party from all the right, estate and interest of her the said Trances Tabb, to dower in the slaves composing the said allotment; and if any of the parties failed to produce such acquittance, the slaves allotted to such party should be delivered to Trances Tabb. And the commissioners were directed to make out lists containing the names and descriptions of the slaves composing each allotment; which lists should be separate, and headed with the name of the respective parties to whom the allotment ought to have been made if the conditions of the decree had been complied with. And the commissioners were directed to return the said lists with all other their proceedings in the premises, in order to a final decree.
    The commissioners appointed to make the division of the slaves made a report, which contained a list of the slaves allotted to Mrs. Tabb, and to each of the five living children. The slaves allotted to the representatives of the other two children were named, but they were not divided between them. This report shewed that the slaves allotted to Mrs. Tabb for her one sixty-fourth part, as distributee of her daughter Harriet, were valued at 1580 dollars. The shares of the seven children were each 14,039 dollars; and Dr. Archer’s share was valued at 14,250 dollars; being 211 dollars more than his share, which he was directed to pay to the different distributees. And it also appeared that the slaves conveyed by Dr. Archer to Mrs. Tabb were valued at 2200 dollars. The report shewed a release by Mrs. Tabb to each of the five living children, as directed by the decree, and a delivery of the slaves to *them. And it was in consideration of this relinquishment by Mrs. Tabb of her interest in Mrs. Archer’s portion of these slaves, that Dr. Archer executed the bill of sale referred to in the answer of Barksdale, by which, in consideration of 2200 dollars, as therein stated, he conveyed to Mrs. Tabb the five slaves mentioned in Barksdale’s answer.
    The cause came on to be heard in June 1832, upon the bill, answers, replications and exhibits, when the Court then held that the plaintiff and the other children of the defendants John R. Archer and Trances Cook his wife, and the said Trances Cook, were entitled to all the dower slaves of Trances Tabb deceased, and the increase of the females, the reversion in which, after the death of the said Frances Tabb, was allotted to the defendants John R. Archer and Frances Cook his wife, under the order of the County court of Amelia, filed as an exhibit in the cause. And that John R. Archer had no legal right or authority to sell and convey to the said Frances Tabb the slaves Philip, &c., which he attempted to convey to her by his bill of sale of the 25th of December 1818. And it was therefore decreed that the injunction awarded the plaintiff should be perpetuated; and that the defendant Barksdale should at the end of the year deliver to a trustee appointed for the purpose, the slaves conveyed in the bill of sale aforesaid, and the increase of the females, to be held by him upon the trusts of the marriage agreement referred to in the bill. And Barksdale was directed to render an account of the hires of said slaves before one of the commissioners of the Court.
    And the Court further decreed, that the same commissioner should ascertain and report whether the slave Sye or Syphax was or was not one of the dower slaves of Frances Tabb, the reversion in whom, after her death, was allotted to the defendants John R. Archer *and his wife, under the aforesaid order of the County court of Amelia. And if the said slave should be ascertained by the commissioner to be one of the said dower slaves, then that he should state an account of his hire from the 31st of December 1828.
    And at another day of the same term, the Court decreed that Barksdale should render an account of Frances Tabb’s guardianship of her daughter Harriet Tabb deceased, before the commissioner who might execute the previous order made in the cause ; and the commissioner was directed to ascertain the share of that estate to which the defendants John R. Archer and his wife were entitled: and to make an enquiry and take an account of the slave Miller Dee, the reversion in which was allotted to said defendants, alleged in their answer to have been sold, and the proceeds received by Frances Tabb. And the commissioner was also directed to take an account of the sale of the slaves shoemaker George and Delphia his wife; and ascertain the share of the proceeds arising from such sale, to which the defendants JohnR. Archer and his wife and their children were entitled, and report all the said accounts to the Court, &c.
    In July 1834, commissioner Baker made his report. He stated the net hires of the slaves Phil, &c., conveyed by Dr. Archer to Mrs. Tabb, and their increase, up to the time when they were delivered by Barks-dale to the trustee of Mrs. Archer and her children, at 154 dollars S3 cents. He reported that Sye or Syphax was one of the dower slaves of Frances Tabb, the reversion in whom after the death of Mrs. Tabb, was allotted to the defendants John R. Archer and his wife: and he stated his hire from 1828 to December 1834, at 100 dollars per annum, or 600 dollars. He reported the interest of the defendants John R. Archer and wife and of their children in shoemaker George and Delphia, *at 227 dollars 85 cents ; and that Mrs. Tabb was indebted to John R. Archer and wife and their children on account of Miller Dee, 1330 dollars.
    As to the account of Mrs. Tabb as guardian of Harriet Tabb, the commissioner reported that the administrator represented that he had no other means of rendering an account, except the books of á certain mercantile house in Petersburg, with which Mrs. Tabb kept an account for herself and all of her children except Mrs. Giles. And the commissioner made some statements of the account from these books, but they were unsatisfactory to himself.
    To this report the defendant Barksdale filed exceptions. First to the statements of the account of Mrs. Tabb as guardian of Harriet Tabb; and after pointing out what he conceived specific errors in the statements, he relied upon the twenty-seven years which elapsed between the death of Harriet Tabb and the assertion of the claim by Dr. Archer to have this guardian account settled.
    2d. He controverted the conclusion of the commissioner that the slave Sye or Syphax was one of the dower slaves the reversion of which had been allotted to John R. Archer and wife.
    3d. To the charge for shoemaker George and Delphia, both on the ground of lapse of time and the insufficiency of proof; and to the charge on account of the slave Miller Dee, on the same grounds; and also on the ground that the interest in the value of the slave should not commence until the death of Mrs. Tabb in 1828.
    And he insisted that as by virtue of the agreement between Mrs. Tabb and Dr. Archer, his family had the use of twenty-three valuable slaves from 1818 until 1828, if the conveyance by Dr. Archer to Mrs. Tabb was set aside, Dr. Archer and wife and their children *should be held to account for the hires of the said twenty-three slaves.
    In July 1840, the plaintiff’s death was suggested, and the suit was revived in the name of his administrator; and the cause was removed to the Circuit court for the town of Petersburg. In July 1842, the cause came on to be heard, and the Court held: 1st. That the decree of June 1832, so far as it related to the slaves mentioned in the bill of sale from John R. Archer to Frances Tabb, and their increase, was binding on the Court, and on the parties to this suit; and that the said slaves having been by said decree ordered to be delivered up to a trustee, and having been actually delivered in compliance with said decree, it would be illegal and improper for the Court now to disturb the same.
    2d. That the slave Sye or Syphax was one of the dower slaves of Frances Tabb, the reversion in whom, after her death, was allotted to the defendants John R. Archer and wife, under the order of the County court of Amelia filed as an exhibit; that Archer retained this slave until February 1819, after he had sold much the larger number of the slaves allotted to him and his wife under that order," when he sold him, and he was purchased by Frances Tabb. That therefore the said slave Syphax should be decreed to be delivered to the trustee to be held by him subject to the uses specified in the marriage settlement.
    3d. That there was nothing in the decree of June 1832, in relation to the hires of Philip and family or of Syphax, which should restrain the Court from decreeing in relation thereto, as to it might seem just and equitable; and that the plaintiffs had no rig-ht to have these hires paid over to them, because the same belonged to and should be paid over, if to any one in this cause, to the defendant John R. Archer. But if he was entitled to them he was also answerable to the defendant as administrator of Frances Tabb for the *sum of 2000 dollars, with interest from the 25th of December 1818, the amount paid him by said Frances Tabb for Philip and his family; and for 800 dollars, with interest from February the 1819, paid for the purchase of Sy'phax; an amount much fiaore than the hires of these slaves; and therefore and because the said John R. Archer was insolvent, the Court would allow the defendant to withhold said hires in part payment of the amount so due from John R. Archer to the estate of the defendant’s intestate; and would, if the administrator required it, order an account between them, as to that subject; but as to no other.
    4th. That the accounts directed to be taken by the decree of June 1832, of Frances Tabb’s guardianship of Harriet Tabb deceased, and also in relation to the slaves Miller Dee, George and Delphia, were improvidently ordered in this cause; and that the Court would neither consider the same or decree in relation thereto.
    It was therefore decreed that Barksdale should deliver to a trustee named, the slave Syphax, to be held by him upon the trusts and to the uses and purposes of the marriage settlement referred to in the bill; and that he should out of the assets of his intestate pay to the plaintiff his costs; and that the defendant John R. Archer should pay the costs of taking the accounts and making the reports ordered by the decree of June 1832. And the cause was continued for the sole purpose of taking an account between John R. Archer and the administrator of Frances Tabb as before indicated, if the administrator should desire it.
    In December 1842, Barksdale as the administrator of Frances Tabb, applied to the Court by petition for a rehearing of the decrees of June 1832, and July 1842, on the ground that when he filed his answer, in ignorance and under a misappre; hension of the facts as to the title of John R. Archer to the slaves directed by the decree *of June 1832 to be delivered up, he had omitted to state the full facts which would have sustained the title of his intestate, and indeed had honestly made admissions according to his then belief, which were seriously detrimental to the interests of his intestate’s estate. That since the rendition of that decree he had been truly informed of the real circumstances under which said slaves were acquired by his intestate, and had obtained the record which he had filed in this suit, of a suit brought in the County court of Amelia in May 1818, from which it was then apparent that instead of said slaves, or at least the greater number of them, being merely held by the father of the plaintiff in trust, they were then actually owned' by him; having been acquired in right of his wife as a distributee of a deceased sister, subsequent to the execution of the aforesaid marriage agreement.
    The cause came on again to be heard on the 23d of December 1842, when the Court rejected the petition for a rehearing of the cause; and the defendant Barksdale electing to take the account tendered him by the Court, it was decreed and ordered that John R. Archer do render an account of the hires and profits of the said slaves received by him during the continuance of the life estate of Frances Tabb deceased, before one of the commissioners of the Court, who was directed to state the account and make report thereof to the Court. And thereupon Barksdale applied to this Court for an appeal, which was allowed.
    Morson, for the appellant.
    Cooke, for John Y. Tabb’s administrator.
    P. V. Daniel, jr., for John R. Archer.
   ADDEN, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Court is of opinion, that although the appellant when he filed his answer in this cause, was ignorant of *all the facts in regard to the title of his intestate to the slaves sold to her by John R. Archer, and described in his bill of sales of the 25th of December 1818, he nevertheless relied on the bill of sale as shewing an absolute title in his intestate to the slaves, and that his intestate had agreed to take for her dower right for that portion of her dower slaves which would belong to Frances C. Archer wife of John R. Archer, at the death of the intestate of the appellant, the sum of 2000 dollars to be paid in slaves; and that said bill of sale was executed in consideration of her having previously agreed to relinquish her right in said dower slaves.

It appears by the decree of the County court of Amelia, of the 29th of May 1818, that the commissioners who were appointed to receive from the intestate of the appellant said dower slaves, and make a division thereof, were directed to allot to the intestate of the appellant one sixty-fourth part of said dower slaves as mother and distributee of her deceased daughter Harriet. The report made by said commissioners shews that the one sixty-fourth part so allotted to the intestate of the appellant as her distributable share of her deceased daughter’s proportion of said dower slaves, was of the value of 1580 dollars; and that the residue of said dower slaves were divided amongst the other distributees of the said John Tabb and said Harriet; whereby each of said distributees received one sixty-fourth part of the slaves as a distributee of said Harriet. And the report further shews, that the slaves allotted to said John R. Archer and wife exceeded the just amount by 211 dollars, which John R. Archer was to pay for owelty of partition. And thus the fact was disclosed by said decree and report, that of the slaves allotted to John R. Archer and wife, he was entitled to receive and did receive, in his own right, unaffected by the marriage articles between himself and wife, slaves to the value of his distributable share in said Harriet’s estate *and the said sum paid by him for owelty of partition, making together the sum of 1791 dollars; and which, therefore, he had a clear right to dispose of. And as the decree of the County court of Amelia was filed as an exhibit and read at the hearing, as appears by the interlocutory decree of the 19th day of June 1832, the facts so disclosed were then in the record, and the appellant is entitled to the benefit thereof at any subsequent hearing, and upon the appeal bringing up the record.

The Court is further of opinion, that it sufficiently appears the conveyance of the slaves by the bill of sale of the 25th December 1818, was nothing more than the execution of the agreement and arrangement previously entered into between the parties referred to in the bill filed in the County court of Amelia, as the arrangements made for compounding their respective interests in said slaves; and the surrender of the slaves, and the release of the intestate of the appellant, was made on the consideration that she should retain slaves to the value of the sum of 2000 dollars agreed to be paid to her b3r each of the distributees, for the surrender of the whole of said dower slaves. And if the said John R. Archer, in disregard of the terms of the marriage articles, after such surrender of the dower slaves, should have improperly disposed of a portion thereof, such misconduct could not affect the title of the appellant’s intestate, acquired under an agreement preceding the surrender of any of the slaves.

The Court is further of opinion, that the arrangement by which the beneficiaries under the marriage articles obtained the immediate possession and enjoyment of the dower slaves of the value of 14,039 dollars, for the small additional consideration above the sum of 1791 dollars, being the difference between that sum and the sum of 2200 dollars ; the consideration expressed in the bill of the sale of the 25th of December 1818, was so *clearly beneficial to all concerned, as to constitute a proper and reasonable charge against the trust estate; and after the beneficiaries under said marriage articles have received or might have received the profits of said dower slaves from the time of such surrender, it would be unjust to permit them to disturb the title acquired by the intestate of the appellant, to the slaves conveyed to her in consideration of her surrender and relinquishment; the said Archer having an absolute right to convey to the extent of 1791 dollars, and the residue of the consideration named being inconsiderable when compared with the advantages accruing to the beneficiaries by the arrangement.

The Court is therefore of opinion, that so much of the interlocutory decree of the 19th June 1832, as perpetuated the injunction enjoining the appellant from selling the slaves named in said bill of sale of the 25th December 1818, and the increase of the females, and directed a surrender of said slaves and their increase to the trustee thereby appointed, and ordered the appellant to account for the hires thereof, is erroneous.

The Court is further of opinion, that the slave Sye or S3rphax in the proceedings mentioned, being shewn to have been one of the dower slaves allotted to John R. Archer and wife, the sale made of him by said Archer was against the terms of the marriage articles; and there is no error in the interlocutory decree of the 12th July 1842, directing him to be surrendered to the trustee in said decree mentioned.

The Court is further of opinion, there was no error in said decree in holding that certain accounts directed to be taken by the interlocutory order of the 23d June 1832, were improvidently ordered in this cause, and refusing to decree in relation thereto.

The Court is further of opinion, that the interlocutory decree of the 23d December 1842, directing that John R. Archer do render an account of the hires and *profits of the slave Syphax and Philip and family, stated to have been received by him during the continuance of the life estate of the appellant’s intestate, is erroneous, the slaves being in fact held by said intestate.

And the. Court is further of opinion, that if under the pleadings in this cause, an account could properly be directed in regard to the price alleged to have been paid to John R. Archer for the slave Syphax and his hires and profits, the question as to who would be entitled to the hires has not been put in issue; and the circumstances of the case shew that no account could lead to any beneficial result.

The Court is therefore of opinion, that said decrees in the particulars herein before declared to be erroneous, be and the same are hereby reversed with costs to appellant; and that the same in the particulars herein declared not to be erroneous, be affirmed. And the cause is remanded with instructions to dissolve the injunction awarded on the 25th of February 1829, in respect to the slaves mentioned in the bill of sale of the 25th December 1818, and the increase of the females; to order a restoration of said slaves, together -with the increase of the females, to the appellant; and for an account and payment over to the' appellant, of the hires and profits thereof from the time he surrendered the same in pursuance of the interlocutory decree of the 19th June 1832, and also to carry into effect so much of the decree of the 12th July 1842, as directed the surrender of Sye or Syphax to the trustee therein named, if he has not been surrendered; and that as to all other matters the bill be dismissed.  