2

covenant to [faith?] the said Thomas H. Campbell, that he,
then said Joseph A. Jones, will warrant specially, title
to all of the slaves, and perishable estate held by the
said James Jones upon the day of his death, & bequeath-
ed to his widow, Mrs Catharine Jones for life, with re-
mainder one, as in the said will set forth."

The question submitted to me is, whether if
Mrs Catharine Jones should by will, in pursuance of the
power vested in her, give any of her husband's slaves
to Joseph A. Jones, the benefit of the disposition would enure
to Campbell?

A deed with general warranty, it is univer-
sally agreed, estops the grantor turn claiming the property
thereby converged, by any title which he may afterwards
acquire, notwithstanding he may {afterwar} have had
nothing in the subject at the time of the conveyance, and
that upon the principle of [avoiding?] circuity of action.
Some authorities, indeed, held that upon the subsequent
acquisition of the better title, the same passes by the mere effect
of the original conveyance, to the granter. But without
giving into that controversy, it is sufficient to [observe that
it is undisputed law that the granter in such case, cannot
efficiently claim the property, by virtue of his subsequently
obtained title.

2 Th [?] Lit. 416, [?] (I); [Id?] 457
Rawlins' Case 4 Co. 53.
2 Lim. [?ig]. 356,
2 Smith's lead. Cas. 474, 507, 571, [&?].
Wells & Austin Tullann. & [?]. 707.
Somes' [?] v Skinner 3 [?] 52
Jackson v [?] [?] Johns. 102, 108.
Jackson v [Wight?] 14 Johns. 193
Jackson v Stevens 16 Johns. 110
Jackson v Bradford 4 Wend. 619
Blanchard v Brooks 12 [?], 47

It seems also pretty well established that
a conveyance with special warranty against the granter
only, and all persons claiming under him, or even with
general warranty, if nothing be conveyed but the exist-
ing title or claim, does not at Law a estop a grantor from setting
up another title subsequently acquired.

2 [?] Dig 356-7
Wynn v Harman's [?] 5 [?]. 163
Blanchard v Brooks 12 [?] 67