Case ID: h-j_1/html/0526-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GENERAL COURT,
    OCTOBER TERM, 1804.
    Standiford et al. vs. Amoss.
    TShe issue or increase of female slaves, bom du« ring- the life oí a legatee for life, is’ the property of the representatives of such legatee
    Arpeas from Harford county court in an action of Replevin by the appellants against the appellee for the following slaves, via. Rachel, Flora, Joshua anil Charles.
    
    The question decided by the county court arose out of the following bequest in the will of William Standiford, dated the 30th of October 1775. viz. “I give and bequeath unto my beloved wife Elizabeth, one negro woman named Rachel,” &c. “for and during’ her natural life, and at her decease to be equally divided between her children, and which are now alive.”
    It was admitted that Rachel, one of the slaves for Whom this action was brought, is the same woman mentioned in the above bequest, and was the property of the testator. After the testator’s death his widow married James Jlmoss, the defendant, and she is now dead. The other slaves replevied w'ere the children of Rachel, born during the life of Elizabeth the legatee.for life, and after her marriage with the defendant. The plaintiffs are the persons to whom the testator bequeathed the property over, after the death of his Wife.
    The question was, whether the issue of the slave named Rachel, born during the life of the legatee for life, and after her marriage with the defendant, was the property of the defendant or of the plaintiffs?
    The County Court gave judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiffs appealed to this court.
    
      
      Hollingsworth and Montgomery, for the Appellants.
    
      , Johnson, for the Appellee.
    He cited 1 P. Wms. £02,503. 2 Com. Dig. 268, 269. 2 Mk. 217. Bey. Com. Guide, 91, and two cases decided in the court oí chancery of this state, Hebbvs. Wilson, and Reedervs. -; also Scott vs. Dobson, (\ Harr. & M‘Hen. 160,J and Somervell vs. Johnson (1 Harr. & M*Hen. 348.J
    
   The Generar Court affirmed the judgment of the County Court.