William v. Reynolds

Tuck, J., delivered the opinion of this court. The correctness of the ruling on the first of the defendant’s prayers is not before us, as he did not appeal. W’e are confined to the points presented by the appeal of the children of Lucinda, against whom the defendant obtained a verdict and judgment; and these arise on the second prayer of the defendant, which the court granted, and on the second of the appellants, which was refused. The defendant’s second prayer,- as granted, assumes that -none of the petitioners, other than Lucinda, are entitled to freedom, no matter when born, whether before or after their ¹¹⁵ mother became free.

It is shown that some of them were born after 1847, when, as is alleged, Lucinda reached the age of twenty-seven. We have no doubt that Lucinda was free at that age, whatever her mistress may have intended; because, according to the established doctrine in this State, in reference to conditional bequests of freedom, the words, “to go to Africa,” can have no effect on the question. By the terms of the will she became free at the age of twenty-seven. We cannot distinguish this case from that of Spencer vs. Dennis, 8 Gill, 314 .

See also, Vansant vs. Roberts, 3 Md. Rep., 127 . The consequence is that the children of Lucinda, if any, born after that time, were free at their birth, and that the second prayer of the defendant was too comprehensive in classing them with the others, as not entitled to freedom. According to Grierson’s testimony, if believed by the jury, some of them were born after their mother became free. As an entire proposition, therefore, the prayer was erroneous, and should have been refused.

But we think there was no error in refusing the second prayer of the petitioners, which asserts that such of Lucinda’s children, as were under the age of five at the time she reached twenty-seven,