WILLIAMS' CASE.—3 BLAND. 237

the life interests is necessarily involved. And that constitutional
rule which requires every citizen to contribute his proportion of
public taxes according to his actual worth in real or personal prop-
erty, seems to have involved the Legislature in a similar necessity
of determining the proportional value of life interests. It is thus
evident that the principles upon which the Court is now called
upon to act, have a most important and extensive bearing; and
therefore, will merit a careful and comprehensive consideration.

The earliest case in relation to this matter I have met with, is
one which was decided by the High Court of Chancery of England
in 1661, and from the language used, in the report of it, there is
room to infer, that it was the first in which any question as to the
proportional value of a particular estate, and a reversion or re-
mainder had ever been presented for determination. It appears,
that Hannah, the widow of Sharp, who had left her a considerable
estate, married Geering, her second husband, who settled upon
her certain land for life as a jointure; that thej mortgaged the
jointure; after which Geering died, and she married Rowel, with
whom she filed a bill to redeem: and a question arose in what
manner a redemption should be made, and by whom; whether by
Hannah; or by the infant heir of Geering; and by whom the
mortgage money should be paid. Upon which it was said, that
the Court conceived it most just, that Hannah and the infant heir
should proportionably pay what was due upon the mortgage, at
the time of the death of Geering the mortgagor, rating the estate
for life of Hannah at one-third, and the reversion in fee at two-
thirds, from the time of the death of Geering. Bowel v. Walley,
1 Cha. Rep. 219. In the year 1671, the same rule of proportion
was applied in a similar case. Cornish v. Mew, 1 Ca. Cha. 271.
In 1682, on a bill to redeem, it was declared to be the ordinary
rule of the Court, that one-third of the redemption money should
be paid to the tenant for life, and the residue to the remainder-
man. Brent v. Best, 1 Vern. 70; Clyat v. Batteson, 1 Vern. 404:
Thynn v. Duvall, 2 Vern. 117. In 1692, on a bill by a reversioner
against the tenant for life to discover incumbrances, and to compel
him to bear his proportion, it was held, that the tenant for life
should pay two parts in five of the debts, and the remaining three
fifths by the * reversioner. James v. Hales, 2 Vern. 267; S.

C. Prec. Cha. 44. In 1696, it was again, m each of two dis- 223
tinct cases, laid down, that on a bill to redeem, the tenant for life
must pay one-third, and the reversiouer two-thirds of the mort-
gage debt. Ballet v. Sprainger, Prec. Cha. 62; Flud v. Flud, 2
Freem. 210. In 1710, on a bill by a remainderman to compel the
tenant for life of a lease for years to have it renewed, it was held,
that the tenant for life should pay one-third of the expense of re-
newment, and the remainderman the residue. Lock v. Lock, 2
Vern. 666. In 1718, on a bill brought by creditors, it appeared,