238 WILLIAMS' CASE.—3 BLAND.

that the deceased debtor had, on his marriage, covenanted to
settle lands that should be of the value of sixty pounds per annum,
upon his wife for life, which he had failed to do. Upon which it
was held, that the wife should come in only as a specialty credi-
tor; and in order to settle the quantum of her demand, an estimate
was directed to be made of the value of her estate for life, at so
many years purchase, upon which she was to be let in as a spe-
cialty creditor for so much money. Freemoult v. Dedire, 1 P. Will.
429. And in 1750, a similar question having arisen, it was deter-
mined, that the tenant for life should pay one-third of the fine and
charges of renewing a lease, and that the two-thirds should be
paid by the remainderman. Verney v. Verney, 1 Ves. 428.

No explanation is to be found in any of these cases of the prin-
ciples of equity upon which the Court proceeded in fixing the pro-
portion in which the tenant for life and the reversiouer should con-
tribute; nor is the age or health of the tenant for life, spoken of
in any of them. It does not, however, seem to have been adopted
as an absolute rule, but rather as one of convenience; as a medium
by which to apply the rule of equity; for, in a case of this kind,
determined in 1697, it is said, that in adjusting what each estate
was to pay, each was to be valued at what they were respectively
worth to be sold. Heveningham v. Heveningham, 2 Vern. 355. In
the first of the before recited cases, it is, in general terms, asserted
to be most just; yet it is fair to presume, that Hannah at the time
of the death of her second husband, when her life estate was esti-
mated as being equal to one-third of the whole, must have been
far advanced in life. The proportions fixed by the case decided in
1692, seems to have been considered in 1720, as a departure from
the general rule. Anonymous, 1 P. Will. 650. In one of the cases,
decided in 1696. it was said, that the rule seemed hard, because
* an estate for life was then worth nine or ten years pur
224 chase, whereas formerly it was worth but seven; Flud v.
Flud, 2 Freem. 210; and in the case determined in 1750, it was
said, that the computation of the tenant for life bearing one-third
was wrong as being too low; Verney v. Verney, 1 Ves. 428; White
v, White, 4 Ves. 34; that is, as not laying enough on the tenant for
life. White v. White, 9 Ves. 557.

In the year 1717, an executor having paid debts to a large amount,
and doubts having arisen about the application of the different
kind of assets, there being a deficiency of personalty to pay all
the debts, he filed a bill to obtain the direction of the Court.
Upon which it appeared, that the testator, being seised in fee of
some land, and possessed of a lease for years, in other lands, and
indebted by specialty and simple contract, devised an annuity of
forty pounds a year, out of the lease for years to one grandson,
and the lease itself to another grandson, and likewise devised all
his lands in fee to A and his heirs. None of the devisees were his