¶1 The only question ilpon which a declaration of our opinion is ashed, at present, is whether that provision of the testator’s will, in which he expresses his desire that his slaves, whom he directs to he sold, shall have the privilege of choosing their own masters, the price to be as6ertained by two persons, to be chosen by the masters and the e-xecutors respectively, is consonant with law, and proper to be carried out by the executors. It is settled in this State that such a humane provision by a testator is not against the policy of our law, and ought to he observed. Washington v. Blount, 8 Ired. *164 Eq. 253; Delap v. Delap, 2 Jones’ Eq. Rep. 290. The only argument against it, is that the slave is incapacitated by his condition, from making a choice of a master, or doing any other act which requires judgment and will, and that it has been so held in a sister State. "We have understood that it has been decided by the Court of Appeals in Yirginia, that a slave cannot elect to be free under a will authorising such a choice. We have very recently held directly the contrary; (Redding v. Findley, 4 Jones’ Eq. 216,) and are unable now to perceive any reason for changing that opinion.
¶2 Pee CueiáM, ■ Decree accordingly.