Volume 1 — Jefferson's Virginia Reports

Detinue. The special verdict in this case is very imperfect and uncertain, so that no title in the plaintiff can be collected from it. But the case is thus.

<p>Blair gave no opinion. For the plaintiff, of master and servant, see 3 Salk. 234.</p>

said the question was, whether the second or third grant were good. That where an estate was granted upon condition, though the condition was broke, the estate continued till entry of the grantor. And wliere an entry was necessary in the case of a subject, an office was so in the case of the Bong. Therefore, that the breach of tire condition of the first grant, must be found by office, before tire estate of the first grantee tvas determined.

The question is not whether the plaintiff’s grant be absolutely void ; but whether it be good against the defendant, who has obtained a fair grant, and observed all the rules prescribed by the law. Whereas the plaintiff’s grant is a mere forgery.

The deed is undoubtedly void, as to the wife, and so it is merely the act of the husband. The question then is solely this, whether the husband in this ease could dispose so as to prevent any title or interest from surviving to die wile; and I conceive clearly that he might, It is agreed that slaves in this case are to be considered, as chattels, the devise to the wife being before the act, making them real estate.

By the act of 1705, slaves are made real estate, though the law is now altered by the act of 1727, with respect to gifts and devises of slaves, that they can only be given and devised as chattels personal. There is, however, a proviso in this last act, that where slaves have been before given for life, and the remainder thereupon limited to another, that such remainder shall be good in law to transfer the absolute property to the remainder man.

<p>Appeal from New Kent.</p>

<p>Appeal from Caroline.</p>

Chancery. The end of this bill is to repeal an act of Assembly. Equity cannot decree against an act of Parliament ; there is no instance where a statute requires a particular act for transferring an inheritance, that a court of equity will dispense with that act. If tenant in tail agree to levy a fine, and die before it is done, equity will not compel the issue in tail to convey. Nothing but the actual levying the fine can take the inheritance from the issue.

<p>Detinue for Slaves.</p>

I shall consider, 1. Whether slaves were entailable, under the act of 1705, c. 23. alone, without being annexed to lands ? 2. Held: that things annexed to lands might be entailed, as charters, covenants to.warrant, &c. But moreover, the thirteenth clause of the act of 1727, confirms the annexations of slaves to lands before that act. 2nd.

Appeal. admitted the hardship of the case on the side of the appellee, but relied on the words of the act of 1710. c. 13. which comprehend this case ; on the importance of the method of processioning towards preserving boundaries in quiet; and on the maxim, that institutions tending to promote public utility, must prevail, though injurious in particular instances..

Appeal.. That the defendant is obliged to serve til! thirty-one years of age, a bare state of the die* several acts of Assembly will evince. The act of 1705, c. 49. s. 18. enacts, that where a white woman shall have a bastard by a negro or mulatto, that bastard shall, by the churchwardens, be bound to serve till thirty-one. It says nothing of the issue of that bastard, who, therefore, by that law were left in freedom.

and in support of the jurisdiction, read the fourth section of the act of Assembly, 1748, c. 6. copied from the act of 1705, c. 19. s. 5. declaring the jurisdiction of the General court in these words, ‘ That the said General court shall take cognisance of, and are hereby declared to have power and jurisdiction to hear and determine, all causes, matters and things whatsoever, relating to or concerning any person or persons, ecclesiastical or civil, or to any persons or…

first premised an historical state of the several acts of Assembly, which had been made on the subject of Indians, with their causes and effect. 1662, c. 136. Purvis. 96.

— There are three questions in this case. I. Whether the slaves in possession of a tenant for life are, under the act of 1748, c. 5. to be continued on the plantations till the 25th. of December, for the benefit of the decedents representatives ? II. If they are, Whether it be not solely for the purpose of finishing the crop, so that the executor may not charge the remainder man hire for.their services, when not engaged in finishing it? III.

<p>Wills -Remamdermen — Right to Increase of Stock. — A testator devised to his wife the use of certain lands, slaves and stocks during- her life, with remainder to his son Charles. The wife married again and the stock was increased by the second husband to a very large degree. After the death of the wife and her second husband the executor permitted the remainderman to enter on such parts of the land as were not nnder cultivation and to employ the slaves, whenever they were not engaged in finishing the crops then growing, to make preparations for the succeeding crop with the agreement that he should pay a stipulated hire for them if the general conrt should decree the defendant entitled thereto. Heed, that the remainderman was not bound to pay hire for the services of the slaves, and that he was als'o entitled to the increased value of the stock.</p>

Chancery. that they would. He admitted that lands, which the devisor has not at the time of making the will, cannot by any words be made to pass under that will; and cited the cases of Buncker v. Cook, and Arthur v. Bockenham, reported in Gibb’s Law of Evidence, which depended on the same will, wherein this point was solemnly adjudged.