Manumiflion
bv one partner
of a fhare
in a partner-
fhip flave induces
his
complete emart-
c ip at ion, upon
his performing
emancipatory
labour
to the other
partner.
ftroyed; and fuch being the cafe, he obtains pofleflion of her in toto in
confequence of his taking .upon him this refponfibility; he accordingly
becomes foie proprietor, and fhe is his Am-Walid in toto.
If, a man emancipate his portion in a copartnerfhip flave, fuch flave
becomes free in toto,— (that is, has a claim to ultimate freedom:)—and
if the emancipator be rich, his partner [in the flave] has three things in
his option; he may, if he pleafe, agree to the freedom of his portion
in the flave without any compenfation,— or, he may require indemnification
from his partner for the value o f his fhafie in the flave,— or, he
may require the flave to procure the freedom of his remaining portion
by labour, as before Hated; and if he chufe the fecond of thefe, he
[the emancipator] has a claim upon the flave for the amount|yand in
this cafe the Willa * refts folely with the emancipator;— or, if the other
partner prefer the fir fl or the third mode abovementioned, the Willa
refts equally with both: but, if the emancipator be poor, his partner
in the flave has two things in his option,— he may either agree to re-
leafe his portion in the flave, or he may require him to perform labour;
— and in either cafe the Willa refts equally with both partners.— This
is according to Haneefa.— The two difciples fay that if the emancipating
partner be rich, the other partner has no right to any thing hut
a compenfation for the value of his fhare; or, if the emancipator be
poor, to require labour of the Have..— The foundation of this difference
of opinion refts upon two points ;— one, that manumiflion is divifible,
according to Haneefa, and undivifible, according to the two difciples;
— another, that the circumftance of the emancipator being rich is not
held by Haneefa to oppofe any objection to labour,— whereas the two
difciples hold the requifition of labour by the partner to be in this
* Willa is a fpecies of right to the property of another founded upon fome adl of af-
fiftance or generofity previoufly exercifed towards him. Thus the emancipator of a flave
poflefles a Willa -with refpe£t to his freedmart, in virtue of which he inherits to his eftate in
the default of other heirs: and, according to fome, the emancipator, in virtue of his Willa,
has alfo a right to all the Have’s effects of the period o f emancipation. See Book X XXIII.
cafe
cafe inadmiflible, on the authority of a tradition of the prophet, who
fajd (concerning a perfon emancipating his portion in a coparcenary
flave) “ I f he be rich, hemufl indemnify his partnerfor the value ofhis
“ portion in that Jlave,— ,b u tif poor, the flave muft.workouthis re-
“ maining portion o f bondage by labour,”— which is a proof that indemnification
is alone admiffible in the firft of the above cafes, and labour
in thefecond. The argument of Haneefa is that,-as the property
of the fecond partner’s portion is involved in the flave, it belongs to him
to require indemnification for the amount from the flave, (in the fame
manner as where a piece of cloth is blown, by the wind, into the vat of
a dyer, and the cloth becomes coloured, in which cafe the proprietor
of the cloth muft pay the coft of dying, whether he be rich or poor
becaufe of the lofs fuftained by the dyer, in fo much of his colours expended,)—
but a flave not being poffeffed o f any property, he is to require
labour of him in lieu thereof.— It is to be obferved that the term
rich * , mentioned in thefe cafes, implies no more than that the emancipator
be poffefled of property to fuch an amount as may enable him
to be refponfible for the value of his partner’ s fhare in the flave be
caufe thus much fuffices to the fatisfaftion and convenience of both
parties, in fulfilling the defign o f the emancipator by eftablifhino- the
freedom of the flave, which is a virtuous and acceptable act,_andndfo
m fecuring to the other partner his right, namely, the value o f his
fhare in the flave.— When we confider the different tenets of Haneefa
and the two difciples, as aforefaid, the ground upon which the doctrine
of the latter (according to their tenets, in the prefent cafe) may
be accounted for is evident.;— and the expofition of the dodrinc of
Haneefa (according to his tenets) is that an option o f manumffion. oca-
pertains to the .other partner, becaufe o f his right in his fhare ftill remaining,
as manumiflion is (according to Haneefa) capable of divifion,
* There are two defcriptions o f wealth in the language of the law s the firft Tifar Tm-
B M H 8 be tranflated competency; the fecondWM Gbannee, or■ 1 1 .the former
IS the defcription which is treated of in this place. '
and
VoL. I. «HI