sad option f i indemnification, becaufe o f the emancipator, in deffroy-
ing Ms own fhare, having deftroyed that of his partner alfo, as it is no
longer transferable by Tale or gift,— and option o f labour, becaufe of his
property in his fhare being involved in the have:— with refpeft to what
is further advanced by him, that if the other partner chufe indemnification
for his fhare, the emancipator has a claim upon the have for
the amount, it may be accounted for in two ways-; f ir s t , the emancipator,
in oonfequence of indemnifying his partner, hands as his fub-
ftitute ; and as it would have been lawful for the other partner to take
the value of his portion in the have by requiring labour of him, fo in
the fame manner it belongs to the emancipator to -exaft of the have
whatever he may have given to his partner as an indemnification for
his fhare, fince he now hands in his place; second l y, the emancipator,
by indemnifying his partner, becomes the owner of his portion
in the have; and thus hands in the predicament of a 'perfon who,
being foie proprietor of a have, has emancipated a part or portion of
him,— and hence he is at liberty either 'to emancipate the remaining
portion, or to require labour Of the have for the value thereof. The
Willa hererehs folely with the emancipator, becaufe the {lave has obtained
his freedom entirely through him, fince he, by indemnifying
his partner, became foie proprietor.— This is fuppofing the emancipator
to ‘be rich .— but if he be poor, the other partner may either
emancipate his fhare, (fince his property in it hill remains,) or he
may require labour of the have; and in either cafe the Willa. of his
fhare appertains to him, ats in both the freedom o f that fhare proceeds-
him: and here the have has no claim upon the emancipator on the
fcore of labour performed by him to the other proprietor, becaufe (as
Hanefia argues) he has performed the labour for the obtaining of bis
freedom, or (as the two difoiples contend) becaufe it cannot be decreed
to be a debt upon the emancipator, fince he is. poor:— contrary to a
cafe where the pawner of a have, being poor, emancipates the have
whom he has pledged,— for in that cafe the have has a claim upon
him for the labour which he in confequence perform? to the pawnee
this claim he has, according to Haneefa, hecaufe he is thus obliged
to labour for his value file r being emancipated,— and, according to the
two difoiples, becaufe the earnings of his labour, which he pays to
the pawnee, is a debt due by the pawner, from whom the Have is
therefore entitled to demand it. The opinion of S h fiei, upon the
cafe where the emancipator of his fhare in the {lave is rich, coincides
with that of the two difciples ;— but where he is poor, S h fiei contends
that full authority {till remains with the other partner, with refpeft to
the difpofal of his fhare, either by fale, g ift, or otherwife, becaufe it
is not reafonable that he fhould demand indemnification of the emancipator,
who, being poor, is incompetent to anfwer it,— nor can he
require labour of the Jlave, who has not committed any offence to juf-
tify the exaction of extraordinary labour from him, and has no will in
the a£t of the emancipator, fince the will or affent to an aft cannot bp
conceived without a previous knowledge of that a<51, which is not fup-
pofed in this cafe, as the emancipator performs it independently of
him ; and it is not reafonable that the {lave fhould become emancipated
in toto, as this would be an injury to the partner ;— from all which it
follows that the right and authority of the fécond partner over his
portion of the fiave remains unaffefted, and ffands the feme as before.
In reply to this reafon-ing our doctors contend that the requifition of
labour is reafonable, becaufe the propriety of fuch a requifition does
not depend upon the commiffion of an offence, but is founded (in the
prefent inftanee) on the idea of the property of the fécond partnër’s
lhare being involved in the Have, as has been already repeatedly Hated ;
there is therefore no neceffity that power (namely, the exiftence ,of
the quality and privileges of freedom) and inability (which is incompatible
with that power) be united in one and the fame perfon.
I f each of two partners fhould teftify or declare that the other had
emancipated his portion, in this cafe the Have muff perform labour to
each partner on account of his réfpedtive fhare., according to Haneefa,
whether the parties be rich or poor, (or if one of them be rich and th,e
U 1.1 2 other
In cafe of
counter-declarations
of
manumilfion,
by the partners
in a
Have, he ik