were based on the question of residence and
(3) those which involved persons detained as slaves.

Most of the first class of cases concerned themselves with the
emancipation of slaves by will. The number of slaveholders who freed
their Negroes during their own lifetime seems to have been very small.
On the other hand, from a study of the slave cases in court it appears
to have been a very common thing for an owner to provide for the
freedom of his slaves in his will. The right of a master to dispose of
his own property was beyond dispute, but, as is often the case, the
heirs were seldom satisfied and they brought the will into court on
one or more technical grounds in an attempt to break the document
which freed so much valuable property. The court in every case held
that the right of the owner was absolute and that if by the letter of
his will his slaves were freed, that right was subject to no dispute.
Furthermore, when the Negroes were thus emancipated they did not pass
to the personal representatives of the deceased, as assets. They
passed by will just as land, and the devise took effect at the death
of the testator, whether it be a devise to the slave, of his freedom,
or of the slave, to another. The servant, thus affected, had only to
appear before the county court and establish his emancipation. This
accomplished, it was the duty of the court to give him a certificate
of freedom without the consent of the representatives of the
emancipator.[342] The right of disposal rested with the owner, who
could emancipate by act, or by will, and he who denied the right
or placed any claim against it was compelled to show the
prohibition.[343]

While the owner had absolute powers of disposal of his own slaves he
could not draw up a will of prospective freedom which would hold in
spite of the rights of his heirs. If a master desired to be very
lenient with his servants, he had to make their freedom absolute and
in writing. This was well brought out in the case of an apparently
kind-hearted Kentucky slaveholder who provided in his will that his
slaves were to select their own master without regard to price. They
chose as their future owner a man who did not need them, but who
offered to take them at about half their real value. The court held
that in such a case the executor was not bound to accept the offer,
since the interests of those entitled to the proceeds of the sale, as
well as the desire and comfort of the slaves, w