
    Chew vs. Gary.
    Appeal from Anne Arundel ^polity court. The appellant, on the 14th of June 1822, filedijinthat court liis petition for freedom, against the appellee, representing that Mary Ann. Wood, on the 10th day of October 1800, made her will, in which is this clause: “My will and desire is, that all my negroes shall be free, except my negro woman Nanny, and my. will is that she shall serve my mother, Ann Broum, during, her life, and at her death jny said negro woman Nanny to enjoy her freedom.”- This woman was the mother of the appellant. The appellant was born during the life of Ann Brown, and subsequent to the death of Mary Ann Wood, tlie testatrix, and claimed his freedom in virtue of the above clause in the said will. The defendant demurred generally to the petition; and the county court ruled the demurrer, good, and gave judgment for the defendant. From that judgment the petitioner appealed to this court.
    The case wras argued before Buchanan, Ch. J. Earle, and Stephen, Jo.
    A, by will, bfiflueathfd Iht slave muriji to for Jiíé, anti that at ¿3\? death, Mary ivas to he five--* 3)u'-hi£ the life of £, Nary has issue, such iss$ie are claves
    
    
      Brice, for the Appellant.
    The only question for the consideration of this court is, whether the petitioner who, it is by the pleadings conceded, was born after the death of Mary Ann Wood, but during the life of Ann Brown, is by virtue of the clause in the will of Mary Ann Wood, liberating the petitioner’s mother at the decease of Ann Brown, entitled to his freedom? lie cited Hughes vs Negro Milly, et al. 5 Harr. & Johns. 310. The act of 1809, ch. 171; and Negro Jack vs Hopewell, (ante 20, note.)
    
    
      Brewer, jr. for the appellee,
    relied upon Hamilton vs. Cragg, (ante 16.)
    
   judgment affirmed.  