Case Name: Burroughs's Adm'r. vs. Negro Anna
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1817-06
Citations: 4 H. & J. 262
Docket Number: 
Parties: Burroughs’s Adm’r. vs. Negro Anna.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 4
Pages: 262–262

Head Matter:
Burroughs’s Adm’r. vs. Negro Anna.
daw? ¡nyis”, ?ohKnedrofwoman a, wim'wss above he6aifo bequeathed labourer »o lom; as youn?vebáyamtrc*thi and four barrels of pork, a cow, hoe d?y other^udicles; and that her son j’ and'property of tire nndei^7hff actthof 3796, dí ¿7, prow-mission yearf,‘ikc^a°™s not entitled to iom'
Appeal from Saint Mary’s County Court. A petition for freedom filed by the appellee against the appellants
The facts as agreed upon were these? The petitioner was slave of a certain L. Burroughs, deceased, who by his w'**’ dated the 12th of September 1811, bequeathed as follows: “I give and bequeath unto my negro woman call-*-d Anna, her liberty, and the advantages of her son as a s0 i°ng as she lives, and a young bay mare three years old next spring, and four barrels of Indian corn, and ee hundred weight of pork, and one black cow about sjx years old, and a hoe and an axe, and a spinning: wheel,, and cards, cotton cards, and one iron pot, holding three gallons or thereabouts, and half a dozen pewter plates, and the balance of the wool after clothing the family, and one young white sow, and all the.dunghill fowls, and Haifa barrel of wheat; also it is my will and desire that my mart J oslas. her son, be the entire right and property of her the Anna.” .The will was duly proved and admitted to record. The petitioner is the negro ^««mentioned in the and petition, and at the time of the death'of the testator, she was above the age of forty. dve years. The tes» tatordied during the present year, (1815,) and the defend» ant is his administrator. The county court, [Johnson, Clu gave judgment upon these facts for the petitioner, being of opinion that she was entitled to her freedom. From this judgment the defendant appealed to this court.
The cause was argued before Chase, Cb. J. and Buchanan, Martin, and Dorsey, J.
Magruder and C. Dorsey, for the Appellant,
referred to the acts of 1715, eh. 44, s. 22, and 1796, eh. 67, s. IS, 29»
Stephen, for the Appellee,
referred to the act of 1796, eh 67, s. 29. Stat. 1 Edw. II, si. 2. Stat. 2 Westminster, eh. 12. 6 Bae. Ab. tit. Statute, (I 5, 6) 384, 385, 386, 387. 1 Tucker’s Blk. part 2. 2 Bae. Ab. tit. Error, (K. 4) 490,491; and Zouchvs. Parsons, 3 Burr. 1794»

Opinion:
JUDGMENT REVERSED,
) See this case referred to by the Court in Hamilton vs. Craggs, 6 Harr. & Johns. 19.