Case ID: nc_58/html/0163-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Battle, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SAMUEL S. HARRISON AND OTHERS, Executors, against NANCY EVERETT AND OTHERS.
    A provision in a will, allowing- a slave the privilege of choosing his own master, is not against the policy of the law.
    Cause removed from the Court -of Equity for Caswell county.
    John Everett-died in the county of Caswell, in the month •of June, 1858, und left a last will and testament, one clause of which is in the following words: “ I desire that my ne-groes shall have the privilege of selecting their masters, their value to be ascertained by two disinterested men, one selected by the master they may choose, and one by my executors.
    The bill is filed by the executors for the direction of the Court, as to their duty arising Under this -clause of the will.
    
      jFowle, for the plaintiff.
    
      Hill and J. W. Graves, fot 'the defendant.
   Battle, J.

The only question ilpon which a declaration of our opinion is ashed, at present, is whether that provision of the testator’s will, in which he expresses his desire that his slaves, whom he directs to he sold, shall have the privilege of choosing their own masters, the price to be as6ertained by two persons, to be chosen by the masters and the e-xecutors respectively, is consonant with law, and proper to be carried out by the executors. It is settled in this State that such a humane provision by a testator is not against the policy of our law, and ought to he observed. Washington v. Blount, 8 Ired. Eq. 253; Delap v. Delap, 2 Jones’ Eq. Rep. 290. The only argument against it, is that the slave is incapacitated by his condition, from making a choice of a master, or doing any other act which requires judgment and will, and that it has been so held in a sister State. "We have understood that it has been decided by the Court of Appeals in Yirginia, that a slave cannot elect to be free under a will authorising such a choice. We have very recently held directly the contrary; (Redding v. Findley, 4 Jones’ Eq. 216,) and are unable now to perceive any reason for changing that opinion.

Pee CueiáM, ■ Decree accordingly.