77.       Id at § 13. For example, in Negro William v. Kelly, 5 Har. and John. 59 (1820), the

decedent granted freedom to William and left an estate sufficient to pay all his creditors
and leave a legacy to his wife. His wife, however, renounced the will in favor of a dower
share of one third of the estate. The effect of the renunciation was to reduce the
remaining assets below the level sufficient to pay the creditors, so William lost his bid for
freedom and was sold to pay his master's debts. In Negro George v. Corse, 2 Har. and
Gill 11 (1827), the testator's will freed George and provided that if his personal estate was
not sufficient to pay his debts, his executor should sell the real estate so as to have his
slaves free. The Court denied this provision, saying that "The creditors are the first
objects.... It is not in his power to confine them to a particular fund for the satisfaction of
their debts,... to turn them over from the natural fund, to one more uncertain, and less
accessible.

78.       In Burroughs v. Negro Anna, 4 Har. and John 262 (1817), the decedent executed a will
giving Anna her freedom and leaving her property in her son [apparently he was too
young to maintain himself and thus could not be freed when the will was executed in
1811]. The testator died in 1815, but Anna had reached the age of 45 and the Court of
Appeals reversed the county court's decision granting Anna her freedom. Thus both she
and her son were condemned to slavery despite her master's wishes.

79.       See Hamilton v. Cragg, 6 Har. and John. 16 (1823) in which the petitioner was two years
old when his freedom was to take effect. When he reached 17, he sued for his freedom,
but the court rejected his claim on the grounds that he was incapable of maintaining
himself on the date his freedom was to commence.

80.      Maryland Laws 1809 Ch. 171. Thus, in Chew v. Gary, 6 Har. and John. 526 (1825), the
petitioner lost her bid for freedom. The testatrix freed all her slaves by will except for
Nanny. The will provided that Nanny should serve the mother of the testatrix until the
mother's death, and then Nanny was to be free. The petitioner was the child of Nanny,
born after the death of the testatrix, but before the death of the mother of the testatrix.

81.      Maryland Laws 1796 Ch. 67 § 17 prohibited any master or mistress from allowing any
slave to depart from their home and "remain at large, begging or becoming burthensome
to the respective neighborhoods." Two decades later, the law forbade any master from
allowing his slave to go at large and hire himself or herself out - although the master
could personally hire his slave to another person. Maryland Laws 1817 Ch. 104. Local
laws regulating the practice of allowing slaves to act as free persons were passed in
subsequent years. Maryland Laws 1821 Ch. 183 (Worcester and Caroline counties);
Maryland Laws 1822 Ch. 115 (Somerset and Queen Annes counties).

On the other hand, slaves remained valuable property and most masters would seek
a slave who had not continually sent back money in order to protect their investment.

82.       John Chester Miller, The Wolf by the Ears: Thomas Jefferson and Slavery 46-59 (1977).

204