WILLIAMS' CASE—3 BLAND. 253

* A ease which was determined, after much deliberation,
about the year 1750, appears to have been the first in which 240
any allusion was made, in the Courts of Westminster Hall, to the
mode adopted by eminent mathematicians for ascertaining the
present value of a life interest of any kind; Chesterfield v. Janssen,
2 Ves. 127; which mode, however, aiter that time seems to have
been well understood; and has been often referred to in those
Courts. Nichols v. Gould, 2 Ves. 423. It would seem, that so early
as 1759, the arbitrary rule of considering an estate for life in land,
as equivalent in value to one-third of the whole, was not implicitly
followed. Lawrence v. Maggs, 1 Eden, 453; Pickering v. Fogies, 1
Bro. C. C. 198. In 1785, the rule was put aside as unjust; and
each interest directed to be valued according to its actual worth,
and in due proportion. Nightingale v. Lawson, I Bro. C. C. 440;
S. C. 1 Cox, 181. In the year 1787, it appears, that among other
kinds of evidence, tables shewing the expectation of life were re-
sorted to as a means of ascertaining the value of a life interest;
Heathcote v. Paignon, 2 Bro. C. C. 167; Griffith v. Spratley, 1 Cox,
389; and it was declared, that the division which the Court had
formerly made of a burthen upon the whole, of one-third to the
tenant for life, had been found to be arithmetically wrong, though
the principle, that it should be borne in proportion, was right.
Stone v. Theed, 2 Bro. C. C. 243. In the year 1798, this matter
having been again submitted for consideration, the old rule was
entirely exploded; and it was declared, that the doctrine of charg-
ing one-third upon the tenant for life could not hold, and was not
to be applied in any case. That it was a most unreasonable and
absurd rule; for, it being admitted, that every person should con-
tribute according to his interest, a man of the age of eighty, with,
perhaps, not a year to live, must be said to have as much interest
as one of twenty. White v. White, 4 Ves. 24; Penrhyn v. Hughes,
5 Ves. 107.

The matter, it is said, had, in some of the cases determined
prior to the year 1804, been very anxiously, frequently and gravely
consideied, although it does not appear from the reports of them;
because of the intricacy of the subject, and of its not being easy
to follow a discussion upon so difficult a question in which such
great nicety of fact and calculation were involved. And it was
then finally laid down, as a general rule in all cases, where a
present value was to be put upon an annuity for life, or any other
life interest in property, as well as where a burthen was to be
borne by an entire estate which was held by a particular tenant,
and a * remainderman, or reversioner, that the estimate
must be made with reference to the then actual nature of 241
the life; and, that an apportionment of the burthen must be
adjusted between the several holders of the estate, so that, if the
particular tenant was bound to pay in any degree, he was made to