Huckaby v. Jones, 9 N.C. 120, 2 Hawks 120 (1822)

June 1822 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

9 N.C. 120, 2 Hawks 120

IN EQUITY.

Huckaby & wife and others v. Jones & others.

From Franklin.

A bequest of slaves to certain persons “to be their lawful property, and for them to keep or dispose of, as they shall judge most for the glory of God, and good of said slaves,” where it could fairly be collected from other paifs of the will that the testator did not mean by the bequest any personal benefit to the legatees, was held to constitute them trustees for the purpose of emancipation, and' as such purpose is illegal, it was held that the legatees took the property in trust for those who were entitled under the statute of distributions.

It appeared from the bill, that Collier Hill died in 1799, leaving a last will and testament, containing the following clause, viz: “Í give and bequeath all my slaves to four men, nasnely, Hill Jones of the county ot Warren and State of North Carolina, to Edmund Jones of the county of Halifax and State aforesaid, to Stith Parham, merchant, of the county of Sussex and State of Virginia, and to Richard Graves of the Methodist church, in the last mentioned State, to be their lawful property, and for them to keep or dispose of, as they shall judge most for the glory of God, and good of said slaves ,* but in case either of those men should be dead, or deceased, before they get the said negroes in possession, it is my will and desire, and I do in that case will and bequeath the said slaves to those of them who may survive or live to get the said negroes into possession,” and appointed Hill. Jones and Edmund Jones executors, of whom, as the bill stated, the former alone qualified. The bill, in which the next of kin of Collier Hill were the Complainants, then set forth that the possession of the negroes was in the Defendants vjd they were claimed by the Complainants, on the ;rr nuid, that a trust in the negroes, resulted for their as uext of kin. To this bill there was a demurrer, and the cause having been removed into this Court by affidavit,

Taylor, Chief-Justice,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question depends upon the morning and construe» don of Collier Hill’s will. He died, leaving a mother, three brothers and two sisters, and by his will bequeathed all his slavea to fhur persons, whom he names, and one of whom he describes as a member of the Methodist Church $ ct to be their lawful property, and for them to keep or dispose of as they shall judge most for the glory of God, and good of said slaves.” These words shew that the benefit of the slaves was to be consulted by the legatees, and not their own personal emolument. That this formed no part of the motive to the bequest, is further shewn by the words, “ but in case either of them should be dead or deceased, before they get the said ne-groes into possession, it is «ny will and desire, and I do in that case will and bequeath the said slaves to those who may survive or iive to get the said negroes in possession.”

Giving the slaves to such of them as survived or got them into possession, shews clearly that he intended only an authority to them, for if a beneficial interest were intended, why not allow it to devolve upon the representatives of those who should die before getting the slaves into possession.

From the peculiar language of the will, I infer that the legatees named were trustees only, and that the purpose of the trust was, to effect an emancipation of the slaves. This has been held to be an illegal trust, and the persons appointed to execute it, hold the property in trust for those who are entitled under the statute of distributions» The demurrer must therefore ho overruled.