Adams v. Adams
Adams v. Adams
Opinion of the Court
delivered Hie opinion of the Court.
This controversy depends upon the construction which ought to be given to the will of Nathan Adams, deceased. The will is dated 9th of February, 1835, and the testator died in November, 1845.. The fourth clause and only portion of the will which bears on the ques-. tion in issue reads thus: “It is my will that, after my-death, all my negroes, viz: Mary, about 25 years old. and her child, now about two months old; David, about 23 years; Jacob, about 21; Fanny, about 13; Frank, about 9; Henry, about 8; Edward, about \;: John, about
After the death of Nathan Adams, his nephew James took possesison of all the negroes, aforesaid, and kept them until his death. By his will he emancipates a negro man, (the only slave he owned, unless those in ■controversy be his,) and makes no allusion, in any part ■of his will, to any other slaves.
The executors appointed by the will of Nathan Adams having failed to act, Kelly was appointed administrator with the will annexed. He is also the executor ■of the will of James Adams, deceased. Kelly having refused to account for the young negroes James and William, the heirs and devisees of James Adams, exhibited their bill, in which they insist that James and William are slaves, and the executor should be required to distribute them. Kelly insists that, by the will of Nathan Adams, they are free, and makes them defendants to his cross-bill, which they, by a guardian, ad litem, answer-, making their answer a cross-bill against the complainants, electing to go to Liberia, and asking a decree declaring them free.
A will being a written instrument intended to carry out, after a man’s death, his desires and intentions at the time of making it, the leading rule in the construction of wills, is to ascertain what that intention was. To
The testator’s declaration, during the ten years which elapsed from the date of the will to his death, cannot,, perhaps, be used to elucidate the meaning of his will,, but it is not improper to say, that, at least, he ever afterwards acted under the belief that the will freed all his slaves. Upon the whole case, we are of opinion that the Circuit Court did not err in decreeing that the said James and William are free on condition of going to Liberia. The complainant’s bill was properly dismissed. There was no error in refusing permission to-file his amended bill, bringing other parties before the Court. Should any of the slaves refuse to go Liberia? the complainants will not be precluded from asserting any claim they may have to them as slaves.
The decree of the Circuit Court is therefore affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.