ing to the civil law, a slave sold with a covenant that the purchaser should manumit him, became free without farther act. If a future time was specified, he became free at that time."

§ 369. Where manumission is not required to be effected by written instrument, nor otherwise restricted by statute, a contract by a master with his slave, for his manumission, might effect an immediate emancipation by implication; as the master thereby recognizes in the slave the power to contract, a power belonging only to freemen.'

1 Dig. xl, 8, 9.

2 Cod. iv, 57, 4.

3 Keane v. Boycott, 2 H. Black. 514, and note.

20

CHAPTER XXI.

OF INDIRECT MANUMISSION.

§ 370. WE come now to consider of indirect manumission; which may be effected either by the operation of law, or by implication, from the acts of the

master.

371. Manumission by operation of law, may be either of foreign laws acting on the slave when properly subject to their influence; or of domestic laws, the violation of which works the emancipation of the slave. We have heretofore considered, at length, the effect of foreign laws upon a slave voluntarily or by flight coming within their jurisdiction; and have laid down the rules which we considered govern such cases.1 1 We will not repeat them here. We may add, that as the animus morandi, the change of domicile, is essential in order to work emancipation, such animus cannot be imputed to one who is not sui juris, and capable of choosing a domicile, such as an infant or one under duress.2

§ 372. So, also, one who has only a temporary interest in a slave, as a hirer or even a tenant for

1 §§ 134-239.

2 Porter v. Butler, 3 Har. & McHen. 168; David v. Porter, 4 Har. & McHen. 418.

life, cannot destroy the interest of the owner, in fee or in remainder, by changing the domicile of the slave to a foreign State. One of several joint owners could destroy the entire interest; for, having a right to the possession of the slave equally with the others, he can choose a domicile for the slave, and his cotenants must look to him for damages in thus destroying the joint property. But a mortgagor cannot thus destroy the interest of the mortgagee. The slave can recover freedom only by satisfying the mortgage debt."

§ 373. If manumission be once effected by the operation of foreign laws, it is as complete and effectual to secure liberty to the slave, as manumission by deed; and the subsequent return of the negro to the original domicile would not restore to the master the dominion over him. Of course it is otherwise where the residence in the foreign State is temporary, and the status of slavery has never been changed, even though the courts of such foreign State refused to aid the master in asserting his dominion within their jurisdiction.*

§ 374. Many of the slaveholding States, conceiving it to be their policy not to admit a farther immigration of slaves, except with their masters, bonâ fide intending to become citizens, have passed laws

2

'Butler v. Delaplaine, 7 Serg. & R. 378; Davis v. Tingle, 8 B. Monr. 545-6. Milly v. Smith, 2 Miss. 171. Marie Louise v. Mariot et al. 8 Louis. Rep. 475; Mimey v. Whitesides, 1 Miss. 472; Bland v. Dowling, 9 Gill. & J. 19; Josephine v. Poulteney, 1 La. An. Rep. 329.

Case of slave Grace, 2 Hagg. Ad. Rep. 94; Dred Scott case, 19 How. 1.

prohibiting such immigration, and have annexed various penalties to their violation. In some, one of the penalties is the manumission of the slave.' In such States, slaves imported in violation of the law, or whose masters have failed to comply with those requisites as to registry, oath, &c., prescribed by the statutes to avoid evasions, are free. If, however, this is not a penalty prescribed, the slave is not free, though imported in violation of the law.3

3

375. If an infant or feme covert should fail to comply with the requisites of the statute, as to registry, &c., the Courts will not permit their failure to work a forfeiture of their title so long as the disability continues. It has been held, also, that an agent intrusted with the importation of the slaves, might comply with the formalities of the statute, even to the taking of the oath prescribed. Nor does the statute apply to any but voluntary importations; and hence, one forced to fly from St. Domingo with her slaves, and temporarily residing in Maryland, was held not to be within the operation

Laws of Maryland, on this subject, Dorsey's Laws, &c. pp. 334, 1108, 1112, 2325; Laws of Virginia, Revised Code, 749; Laws of South Carolina, Stat. at Large, vii, 447.

2 Henderson v. Tom, 4 Har. & John. 282; Scott v. Ben, 6 Cranch, 1; Boisneuf v. Lewis, 4 Har. & McH. 414; Fulton v. Lewis, 3 Har. & J. 564.

3 Gomez v. Bonneval, 6 Mart. 626.

4 Haney v. Waddle, 3 Har. & John. 557; Sprigg v. Mary, 3 Har. & J. 491.

5 Montgomery v. Fletcher, 6 Rand. 612. McMichen v. Amos, 4 Rand. 134.

A wife may not.

of the law. So, if a slave is brought into the State without the consent of the true owner, he does not become free.2

3

§ 376. If a slave be removed to another State, and acquire a domicile there, the subsequent return of such slave into the State is an importation within the statute. If, however, the master's residence in such other State was temporary, on his return with his slaves he need not comply with the formalities prescribed by the statute.*

6

§ 377. Slaves introduced into the State for a mere temporary purpose, as by a hirer for a year, are not imported in violation of the law. After long possession in the State, the Court may presume a compliance with the statutory regulations. Under certain circumstances, also, parol evidence has been admitted to supply an omission in the certificate given by the collector of the tax imposed on slaves imported."

§ 378. It is almost unnecessary to say, that where the statute requires the registry of slaves for the

1

Baptist et al. v. De Volunbrun, 5 Har. & J. 86; Ib. 99, n. Aliter if the residence be permanent. Fulton v. Lewis, 3 Har. & John. 564.

2 Scott v. London, 3 Cranch, 324; Pocock v. Hendricks, 8 Gill. & J. 421; see also 6 Munf. 12; 4 Rand. 67.

3 Wilson v. Isbell, 5 Call. 425; Sprigg v. Pressly, 3 Har. & J. 493; Betty v. Horton, 5 Leigh, 615.

4 Murray v. McClarty, 2 Munf. 393; Barnett v. Sam, 1 Gilmer, 232; Adams v. Leverton, 2 Har. & McH. 382.

5 Henry v. Ball, 1 Wheat. 1.

Mason v. Matilda, 12 Wheat. 590; Abraham v. Matthews, 6 Munf. 159.

7 Harry v. Lyles, 4 Har. & McHen. 215.