
    *B. and L. Gardner v. Sarah Harden.
    The security which the court will grant the remainder-man, of personal property, against the acts of the tenant for life. Where there is no reasonable ground for apprehension on the part of a remainder-man of the tenant for life of personal property, the court will only order the tenant for the to give a schedule of the property. In ease, however, of danger, or just apprehensions of it. the court will order security to be given to the remainder-man. Cases of this sort are left to the discretion of the chancellor, and his order will not be disturbed, unless improperly exercised.
    The bill stated that the complainants were entitled (in common with their sister Rebecca Old, not a party to the suit) under the will of Robert Gardner their late father, and former husband of defendant, to the property in remainder, after the termination of the life interest of defendant, in the negroes Somerset, Lucy, Harriet and Edmund ; that Somerset had been sold or carried off to the western country by the defendant, or her late husband William Harden, and that the other negroes were still in her possession. That they had ample cause to believe, and did verily believe, that the defendant was then preparing to remove, to some other State or place, without the limits of this State, and perhaps to Alabama; that they were credibly informed by different persons in whom they placed the utmost reliance that she had repeatedly declared, that she would move during the fall or the ensuing winter, and would run or take off the negroes. The bill prayed a writ of ne exeat against the defendant; and also, that she might be compelled to give security for the forthcoming of the property after the termination of her life interest.
    The answer of the defendant admitted the will of Robert Gardner; her possession of Lucy, Edmund and Harriet, and the sale of Somerset by her late husband William Harden and the subsequent death of the negro. She claimed an absolute right to the negroes, independent of the will, in the following manner, viz: Somerset, Lucy and Harriet were sold under a great number of magistrate’s executions against the estate of Robert Gardner in 1807, when there were no funds of the estate in the defendant’s hands. She purchased them *wilh her separate property. Harriet, while a child, was given by the fendant to her daughter, and afterwards taken back in exchange for another negro. Edmund was sold on the 10th of December, 18Í0, as the property of Robert Gardner’s estate, under an order from the ordinary, and purchased by William Harden some time before his intermarriage with the defendant. Edmund and Lucy, after the death of Mr. Harden, were sold as his property and purchased by the defendant.
    
      The defendant positively denied the charge of the bill, “ that she had repeatedly declared that she would move during the ensuing fall or winter, and would run or take off' the negroes.” She averred that she had no intention of leaving the State speedily or clandestinely. She admitted that she had often and openly expressed her wish to remove to another State, where most of her family and friends resided, if she could settle her affairs here ; but she had never commenced the preparation necessary for a removal.
    On the trial the death of Somerset was proved, and that he had been hanged in the western country, and the value of the other negroes proved to be about §1,000. No other testimony was offered on either side.
    June, 1826. DeSaussure, Chancellor. With respect to the question, whether there is just ground to believe that the rights of the complainants are endangered by the conduct of the defendant, I can have no doubt. The defendant, on her second marriage, permitted her husband to dispose of some part of the property. She admits that he sold some portion of it, and she sold others of the slaves. One, called Somerset, was sent out of the State and sold to strangers, beyond the reach of complainants, and perished, by due course of law, for a crime to which he was exposed in his new situation. The defendant also allowed sales for magistrate's fees; and *she does not pretend to hold them under the will of her first husband, but under the various alterations, exchanges, &c., which have been contrived or permitted to be made. And Somerset is utterly lost by her misconduct. Under these circumstances, it is in vain to say that there is no danger to the rights of complainants. The danger is not merely suspected or ideal, but has existed, and indeed actual loss has occurred, and there must remain well-founded apprehensions as to the remainder.
    The only question, then, which remains is, whether the complainants are entitled to any, and what security, for the protection of their interests? It is usual in such cases, where there does not exist cordial harmony and confidence between the parties, to require a schedule of the property in question, to be signed by the tenant for life, and delivered to the remainder-men as evidence of their rights. And where there is no reasonable ground of apprehension for ill intentions, that is sufficient. In case, however, of real danger, the protection furnished must be increased. In this country the facilities of removing personal property out of the State are so great, that a stricter watch and a prompter protection than in other countries is requisite. That remedy is given in England, where security is required, in many cases, for the forthcoming of the property, at the death of the tenant for life. In this State it has often been ordered, both before and since the case of El-gin, in 4 Desaus. Rep. 26. The amount of the security need not be exactly proportioned to the value of the property. The negroes that are living were valued at about §1,000, besides Somerset at about $500 or §600. He ought not to be included. The injury has been sustained and the complainants may seek their remedy for the injury, but that is not for this court.
    It is, therefore, ordered and decreed, that the defendant, *Sarah Harden, do give bond, with good security, to be approved by the commissioner, for the forthcoming of the slaves in question (by name,) except Somerset, at the termination of the life estate, and for the delivery thereof, with the issue of the females, to the complainants. The penalty of the bond to be in fifteen hundred dollars.
    Jan. 30, 1827
    -, for the defendant, who appealed.
    This bill is for a ne exea/, and there must be proof of acts of danger to authorize the court to interfere. But there is no case of the writ issuing upon mere threats of leaving the country. The rights of the tenant for life should not be. impaired by a hasty interference. Where the object is to restrain a contemplated removal from England to a colony, the English courts require a stronger case than where the contemplated removal is to a foreign country. Beames’s Ne Exeat, 45. The argument is much stronger when the removal is oaly to another State, a component part of the same country, where equally just laws prevail, and afford adequate remedy. Besides, the affidavit should have stated the circumstances positively, shewing the intention of the defendant to go abroad, or proof of his declarations. Beames’s Ne Exeat, 24. This is the settled doctrine in cases of ne exeat, and there is no reason why the same rule should not govern these cases, which are in the nature of quia timet. The answer of the defendant denies the intention of immediate removal.
    Ford, contra.
    Admitting that the doctrine, that the remainder-man can have security for the protection of the property from the tenant for life, is much modified here, and that there must be danger to induce the court to grant this kind of security (1 Mad. Ch. 2 P. Wms. 103,) the facts are quite sufficient in this case to induce the court to order the security to be given. The sales made were entirely inconsistent with the rights of the parties. *We rely generally upon Latimer v. Elgin, Desaus. 20. The admissions in the answer are sufficient, Roddam v. Hetherington, 5 Fes. 91.
    -, in reply, cited Musgrove v. Wolford, Harp. Eq. Rep. 75, and Reese v. Halloway.
    The writ can only issue, upon a certain equitable money demand. 2 Madd. Ch. 227.
    The whole of the defendant’s answer should be taken, and it shews no danger or cause for apprehension. Besides, the sales of the negroes were forced under magistrate’s executions.
    Feb. 1827.
   Curia, per

Nott, J.

All cases of this sort must depend, in a great measure, on their own peculiar circumstances.

They must, therefore, be left very much to the discretion of the judge to whom the application is made. It does not appear to this court that the power has been improperly exercised on this occasion. The motion must, therefore, be refused and the decree affirmed.

Decree affirmed.  