Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-04-13
DBors1CNs OF THE sUPREmE COURT


OfELJL41L-
Opinions OF she Supreme Court of the
state OF Tennessee, at Knoxville, Sep
TEMPER Tcrms 1859.
Ise man Of COLOR BY bis friend vs.. suger and others
The compainantseeks by this bin to be emancipated
ydecree of the Court ChaBcery The right offree-
dom is based upon supposed agreement ALLEGED to
have been made with him by Henry Sliger his for
mer owner. The allegation Of the bill is shat the
said Henry, previous to his DEATH agreed with the
said Isaac that he should be free at the death of
Elizabeth, (wife of said Henry IN the event that he
conducted himself properly up to the happening Of
that event"
Happears that said Henry Sliger died in Wash
ington county, in this State. in 1884 Immediately
preceding his DEATH he duly made and Published his
last viii and testament whereby he devised and be-
queathed ali his property, both real and PERSONAL
| to his widow during her life or widOwhood, with
remainder to his seven children. The widow died
in 1859 upwards of twenty years after the death of
/ her husband, without having made any provision
/ for cOmplainants emancipation; and attempt be-
ing made soon after her death by of the chill
dren Of testator to sell complainant, tls bill was
! filed.
1t appears that complainant lived with and served
his mistress up to the time of her death; and al
though his treatment Of her, and his general good
! conduct are complained of by the defendants in
their answers we think that. other difficulties Out
of the way the relief sought by complainant could
not be successfully resisted on this ground.
lne main question IS. has the COLl pldiLlb tcltO-
| lished legal right to freedom?
Theproof upon this point rests upon the parol de-
carations Of the testatOr. One witness proves that
he heard the tesator say, not long before his DEATH
/ cNgheu his will was read over, and witness asked
him if he had not set his negro, Isaac free, he,
| Isaac was not mentioned in the will) that he had
left all to Betsy Cs wife, during her life and that
Isaac was to serve her during her life, and at her
death she was 10 set him free II he done WE'LL. This
witness had had frequent conversations with testa
/ i- erah1n nf IN pqzIOU
heard him say lin tie presence of lsaac) "that he
intended to set him free at his DEATH Isaac would
be as good as he had been.' Another witness heard
the testatOr say, the evening he died, that he want
ed his black boy Isaac, set free at the death Of his
Wife if he was good boy to her. This said
TO 4 neighbOr who was 1present, in conversation
between the testator and him. and in the expectation
Of approaching dissolution. A third witness heard
the testatOr say, "that if Isaac was good boy he
would free him." This was, perhaps, some time
before his death.
The foregoing is the substance of the evidence;
and this it is assumed for the complainant furnishes
sufficient evidence of valid contract between Sliger
and complainant emitting the latter to freedom.
This is a mistaken assumption The proof estab-
fishes no contract We need not stop to discuss the
validity of contract entered INTO directly between
master and slave for the freedom Of the latter 1t
is settled by our Courts, that such cOntract-upOn
a consideration moving either from the slave, or
from stranger on behalf Of the slaye-is valid and
obligatory. 8 Hum 1856. The proof shows, that the
master entertained different purposes and intentions
in regard to the emancipation Of complainant, at
different times. His first intention to free him
at his own death, if he continued to be dutiful
servant But nothing done in execution Of ibis
| purpose and it was afterwards abandoned. 1t was
a mere voluntary declaration or promise, which i'm
posed no obligation on the master, nor did it confer
any right on a slave. And had it even assumed the
form Of an agreement between the master and slave
whatever might have been its obligation in fOrO con
scientific in contemplation oflaw, it must be regard
ed a INDIAN tdctlm.
The will which was made perhaps on the dag pre-
cedng the death of testatOr demonstrates that his
intention then was that the complainant should
main in the condition of slavery. And this leads
to consider the force and effect to be given to the
parol declaration made after the execution of the
will that Isaac was to serve her (the widow
during her life, and at hec death she to set him
free, if he done we'll" Did this declaration create
a trust IN favor Of the slave?
1t is unquestionably true that as the will was in
operative until after the testatOT's death. and the
title the slave still in him. he might after the ex-
ecutiOn of the will. have sold or disposed of the
slave in any manner authorized by law; and this
would have been a revocation of the will DrOiGatO
He might, after the WILL have conferred the slave
by parOl declaration present right OF freedom;
and this would likewise have been, TO tlt extent,
revocation of the will. So he might subsequent to
the making of the will have stipulated with his
! wife that she should emancpate the slave, that
! he should be free at her death, and in this mode
nave CFedletl 2 valid )lEOl trust III FAVOR OF inc
| slave, which would likewise have been partial
revocation of the will [See Hill on Trustees q Am
Ed SO ct Seq.l But Of these things done.
1t does not appear that, after the execution of the
WILL the testatOr communicated TO his WIFE directly
or Indirectly, any wish intention that the slave
Isaac should be emancpated at any time; that he
enIoined any duty upon her touching the emancpa-
ton Of said slave nor does it appear that she had
any knowledge that such parol declaration had been
| made by the testatOr.
1t is clear. therefore that these declarations do
not affect the conscience Of the legatee, do they
! create trust in favor Of the slave.
The widow, if so disposed could not, as against
the owners of the remainder interest have emanci-
pated the complainant And it Is equally clear, that
these declarations after the will so far from being
evidence Of any intention the part of the master
by his own act TO confer upon his slave a present
right of freedom demOnstratve of the very CON
! tTary intention.
We feel constrained therefore to reverse the de-
| cree and dismiss the bill MCKINNEY.
\ true copy. Test: c. w. NELSON Clerk