#### Henry v. Bradford.

May, 1842,

Richmond.

Case Approved.—The decision in *Maria and others*v. Surbaugh, 2 Rand. 228, adhered to.

Emancipation of Slaves—Increase.*—A testator by his will directs that his negro girl *Adah*“shall only serve ten years, and then have her freedom.” During the ten years *Adah*has a daughter named *Ebby.*A son of *Ebby*sues for his freedom. *Held,*he is a slave.

In a suit for freedom in the county court of Accomac, by Henry son of Ebby against John Brown Bradford, the j ury returned a special verdict, which found the following facts :

That by the will of Brown Bradford, admitted to record in the court of Accomac *57county the 27th of January 1795, the testator devised and bequeathed as follows : *“I lend the use of my plantation and all the rest of my property unto my dear wife Peggy Bradford during her widowhood, to school and bring up my children on ; but my will is that my negro girl Adah shall only serve ten years, and then have her freedom ; likewise my negro boy Abraham shall serve twelve years, and then have his freedom.” That the negro girl Adah, in the said will named, was a slave of the said Brown Bradford, and survived her said master. That the testator died the 5th of December 1794; and after his death, and before the expiration of ten years from his death, to wit, on the 15th of March 1798, the said Adah had a child named Ebby, born on the day last mentioned. That the said Ebby was the mother of the plaintiff, who was born on the 15th day of May 1815. That the plaintiff was born in the possession of the defendant, and that he has ever since been in his possession and held by him as his slave, and is still so held.

The county court, being of opinion that the law upon the special verdict was for the defendant, gave judgment in his favour.

Henry petitioned the circuit court of Accomac for a supersedeas, which was denied ; and then he presented a petition to a judge of this court for a supersedeas to the judgment of the circuit court, which was allowed.

The cause was argued by Lyons for the plaintiff, and John E. May for the defendant.

The plaintiff contended, that according to the principle of Isaac v. West’s ex’or, 6 Rand. 652, the civil condition of Adah was, immediately on the death of the testator, changed from that of slavery to freedom, although she was to serve ten years ; that Ebby, though born when her mother was bound to service, was born free, and consequently that the plaintiff was born free. The defendant contended, that according to the principle of Maria and others v. Surbaugh, 2 Rand. 228, Adah continued a slave ’''until she had served the ten years, at the expiration of which time she became a free woman *;*that her children born during the ten years were born slaves ; that Ebby therefore was born a slave, and the plaintiff also.

*

Emancipation of Slaves—Increase.—On this subject, see quotation from Wood v. Humphreys, 12 Gratt. 334, where the principal case is cited, in *foot-note*to Osborne v. Taylor, 12 Gratt. 117.

CABELL, P.

The court is unanimously of opinion that this case is ruled by that of Maria and others v. Surbaugh, and that there is no error in the order of the circuit court. It is therefore considered that the same be affirmed.