Case Name: The Executors of Rogers against Berry
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1813-05
Citations: 10 Johns. 132
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Executors of Rogers against Berry.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 134–135

Head Matter:
The Executors of Rogers against Berry.
NEWYORK,
May, 1813.
A mannmis. Sion oí a slave by an infant, withapconsent°ofhis guardian, is voidable; but the manaraisdefeisiWe/lfemean “timalid, theeiave ted is a comnehe mfaut' to r voke the gift age,Credit of the witness only,
THIS was an action of trover for a negro girl. The cause e was tried, at the Washington circuit, in June, 1812, before Mr. Justice Yates. At the trial, the' plaintiff offered a negro d Adam, as a witness. The defendant objected to his competency, and proved that he was the slave of the testator , , at the time of his death. The plaintiffs then proved that by his last will and testament, the testator bequeathed the slave, with, ° property, to his son Walter, and to his assigns, to serve him or them until the 17th of April, 1817, on which day and year the testator gave the slave his freedom, and declared that from that time he should be considered, to all intents and purposes, Walter, by. an instrument in writing under his hand, dated the 8th of January, 1811, stating that he was the master and owner of the.negro man named Adam, aged 30 years, be-<llhed to him by the last will of his father, and considering the impropriety of holding Adam longer in servitude, and in consideration of his having been faithful, &c. and being of sufficient ability to maintain himself, he thereby, from principles of benevolence, (having first obtained the approbation of his guardian,) manumitted and set him free from the date of" the instrument. It appeared that Walter was 18. years of age at the time he executed this instrument of manumission, and that his guardian endorsed thereon his written consent to the act of manumission.
The objection to the witness was still insisted on, on the ground that the instrument of manumission, being executed by ap infant, was voidable, and the manumission, therefore, not absolute, but revocable. The judge deciding against the competency of the witness, a verdict was found for the defendant.
A motion was made to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial.
Skinner, for the plaintiffs.
Weston, contra.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The manumission by the infant was voidable when he should come of age. The sale, gift and actual delivery of a chattel, by an infant, is voidable. (Perkins, s. 12.) But, in the mean time, the sale, gift, or transfer, is valid, and the interest which passes, or is released thereby, vests. The manumission being valid, though defeasible afterwards, the witness was not, at the time, a slave, and the objection to his competency was not well taken. He must be a slave at the time, to come within the disqualification prescribed by the statute. The power which the infant had of revoking the gift on coming of age, would, no doubt, have a strong and undue bias on the mind of the witness, but this would be an objection to his credit only. He could not be set aside on the ground óf being a subsisting slave. The verdict must, therefore, be set aside, and a new trial awarded, with costs to abide the event of the suit.
New trial granted.