
    COURT OF APPEALS, JUNE TERM, 1821.
    Hughes vs. Negro Milly, et. al.
    
    m, by lire win |h-iiiam<-d Mit™ ?u£nicw”thi'nl’!5 Srsí.^siwuiVarl 2i7and'11 tiiaf be he'r Uimn"«i”aieiy tirat h5rfi-eeíñmMcñlreat tbe tomi" the residue and dietMií’ ms hi/i estate, ami in ISIS, by deed, lie manumitted the death of the testa-Se^ectfi'to dó’so weíe^enütk-d’to
    iito net .wsinn*' bV1!a¡nít i</si vi- no! (eiin'to. diviné11 ti?<! '“ilílt .lato™830 ntt*s’
    Appeal from Harford county court, on a petition for. filed by the appellees. At the trial the petitione3-’s. 0i?ere(l evidence, that Margaret Coale being possessed °f a 110&r0 girl called Frina, aged fifteen years, made, on the 2S<1 of May 1776, her last will and testament in writing, wherein among other bequests she bequeathed as follows, viz;. I st. “I give and bequeath unto my son, Philip , Coale, my negro girl named Frina, until she arrives to the age of twenty-one years, being at this time about fifteen years of age, and I do order him, that immediately after my decease he manumit her, and her posterity, so that . . ■'' ' ' r J " their freedom may be secured to them at the age or tweim ty-oue years.55- 3d,, give and "bequeath unto my son, Samuel Coale, all the remainder part of my estate after n,y son ali(l ffiy daughter Sarah, hath received their legacies as above,” &c. That Margaret Coale, died in yea? 1786. and that Sarnuel Goale, her son, one of the legatees mentioned in the said will, took out letters of ad-mini strati on ^ with the will annexed^ on the estate of the said Margaret Coqlr^ his mother. And on the 3d of March 1819, executed a deed of manumission to the petitioners, as follows, viz. t‘Whej;eas my mother, Margaret Coale, in her last will and testament, commanded my brother, Philip Coale, to secure by manumission the freedom of her slave Frina, and her offspring, which command- the said Philip neglected to execute; aud whereas by a subsequent clause of the same will, (through the said Philip’s omitting to execute the said manumission,) the said Prina% and her 'offspring, became my property, being a part of tbé resiflue of mv mother’s estáte Bequeathed to mé by the said will'! therefore, iri conformity to my mother’s wish towards .her slaves, as wéll as to myowrt feelings ofjusticetowards members of the human family, I hereby manumit, and for ‘ever set free, Milly, (daughter of Prina,) and her children} Washington and Hannah; Hannah (daughter of Prina,) and her children Henry, Joe and Susan; Susan, (daughter of Priná,) and her daughter Betsey, and Fanny daughter 'of Sally, and grand-daughter of Pririá.” &e. That the petitioners Milly, Hannah and Susan; stated in the petition tó be mothers, are the daughters of Prina, and were born after the death of Margaret Coale, and that the petitioners, Hannah and Washington, are the children of Milly, ánd. that the petitioners, Henry, Joseph and Susan, áre the children of Hannah, the daughter of Prina, and that the petitioner Betty, is the child of Susan; daughter of Prina; and that the petitioner Fanny is the daughter of Sarah; who was the daughter of Prina, which said Sarah was horn after the death of Margaret Coalé. The petitioners then moved the court to direct the jury, that if they believed the foregoing testimony, they must find a verdict for the petitioners! which opinion and direction the court, f Dorsey, Ch. J.j gave to the jury. The defendant ex-1cepted! and the verdict and judgment being for the petitioners, tire defendant appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued before Buchanan, Earle, Johnson, and Martin, J.
    
      Taney, for the appellant, contended—t.
    That tinder the bequest to Philip Coale the petitioner’s ancestor was bequeathed absolutely to him, and no right to her could pass (to Sárñuel Coáte under' the bequest to him. líe cited Goodtitle vs. Otway, 2 Wils 6. 2. That under the act of 1752, ch. 1, no will could be made to give freedom to slaves.
    
      Raymond and R. Johnson, for the appellees,-
    stated that the claim of the petitioners to freedom was on two grounds* 1. Under the will of Mrs. Coale; and 2. Under the deed of manumission executed by Samiiel Coale. They contended, 1. That an administrator might manumit the slaves of the intestate. 2. That when the testatrix died, the time had elapsed when Philip could take under the 
      bequest to him, that it was a lapsed bequest, and the slaves passed to Samuel under the bequest to him. 3. That manumission by will was not. prohibited by the act of 1752, eh. 1, unless made during the last sickness of the testatrix. 4. That as, Philip could not take the slaves, they passed tó Samuel, who in due form manumitted theni. That the bequest to Philip was in trust, which trust devolved upori Samuel to execute;
   The Court oe Appeals

affirmed t’né judgment of thé County fcourt;  